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

[Autos_Editor]

G-Vectoring and vertical tire load.
Read More...

[mixmanmash]

Most articles I have read are saying both the 2017 Mazda 6 and 3 will have this tech.

[wing]

At the time of the writing they specifically said Mazda6 only.

Then recently I read Mazda3.  The entire line will receive this, 6 was supposed to be first.

[Noto]

A smart change. Nissan did something similar (not in terms of tech, but in terms of motion control) and it worked really well to give a comfortable ride. If Mazda is able to maintain a fun to drive ride that is better controlled, all the better!

[revalations]

I think it great that Mazda is pursuing fun to drive in it's lineup of economy/family cars. Too bad it only speaks to enthusiasts, and a small number at that. Very few people car if their 4 door sedan offers any driving pleasure at all. Today, the size of the infotainment screen and LED running light options seem to have more influence on consumers buying decisions.

[Bulkley]

I think it great that Mazda is pursuing fun to drive in it's lineup of economy/family cars. Too bad it only speaks to enthusiasts, and a small number at that. Very few people car if their 4 door sedan offers any driving pleasure at all. Today, the size of the infotainment screen and LED running light options seem to have more influence on consumers buying decisions.

The older Mazda 3 Sport is a great car and fun to drive with a manual transmission.  The newer Mazda 3's have too many electronic distractions, automatic transmissions and less snap.  We will keep our 2005. 

[theonlydt]

I think this tech won't swing a single buyer to the brand. It's sad, but it's about wireless charging for your cellphone, a 360 degree reversing camera, or even just the badge on the front.

I love Mazda. I've have one, my third, but the assumption always is that in "features" you'll be lacking some of the latest, but I'm more interested in the engineering under my car. So for example you can't get a Mazda 5 with navigation - never have (and never will). The architecture is too outdated. However I got one because of how it drives and how usable it is for the footprint. A small improvement in ride/handling isn't going to get me to buy another, or buy it over another car. (whereas 50lbs of sound insulation probably would!).

I look forward to trying it, and I'm glad Mazda still want to make cars people want to drive. The problem is that people suck.

[whaddaiknow]

Nice tech but kinda useless due to below (and I would much rather Mazda focused on those):

Changing engine oil every 4 months is facking ridonculous
No V6 or 2.0T in the lineup means no visit to their showroom

[Fobroader]

Uhhh....yeah no, thanks. Give me a manual, mechanical LSD and some decent tires over all this electronic BS.

[dasiuyan]

Uhhh....yeah no, thanks. Give me a manual, mechanical LSD and some decent tires over all this electronic BS.

it seems this article could not really highlight the benefit of the GVC; as i got different impression of the system after WATCHING the demonstration a week ago from another internet article.
https://youtu.be/VBZfVRnKpyg

[mlin32]

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

[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?

[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?

I think he owned a 3 GT for some time.

[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?

I think he owned a 3 GT for some time.

Well that's not got Mazda's new 2.5T...

[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?

I think he owned a 3 GT for some time.

Well that's not got Mazda's new 2.5T...

Sorry.  Missed the "T".

[mlin32]

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".

[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

[mlin32]

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

Oh don't get me wrong, I love the torque of diesels. I lived with the 2.0 TDCi from Ford for 6 months last year (420 Nm !) so it was sad when I came back to a petrol when I moved back to this side of the Atlantique.

But a petrol engine should rev smoothly, freely, and sing to the redline. If it doesn't do that, may as well buy an actual diesel for the efficiency versus a "petrol that behaves like a diesel" without the consumption and CO² benefits.

[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.

[theonlydt]

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

Oh don't get me wrong, I love the torque of diesels. I lived with the 2.0 TDCi from Ford for 6 months last year (420 Nm !) so it was sad when I came back to a petrol when I moved back to this side of the Atlantique.

But a petrol engine should rev smoothly, freely, and sing to the redline. If it doesn't do that, may as well buy an actual diesel for the efficiency versus a "petrol that behaves like a diesel" without the consumption and CO² benefits.

Ugh, I miss diesels so much. Had the Skoda Octavia 1.6TDI in the UK two years ago and drove on the wave of torque (despite only 110bhp). 65mpg average while I had it, saw 70mpg on the motorway.

Shame the 1.6 diesels were pumping out huge amounts of NOx....

Before the shameful 1.8 (R18) in the Civic, Honda engines used to sing. I had a 1.4 (D14A8) and 1.8vtec (F18A3) that loved to rev. There are few NA engines left, especially 4 cylinder, that are progressive, quiet, smooth and will rev freely. Actually, the 2.0 in the Elantra GT is probably the best I can think of.