Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2012 Mazda3

1234579

Comments

  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Like I said, I was talking about the sedan but they both have similar look in the rear. After looking at the picture of the sedan you thoughtfully provided, I haven't changed my mind.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    My fully loaded 2004 GT with leather, moonroof, every available option was only $13.2k + TTL.

    How much more was MSRP? How would a current Elantra LTD sedan with about the same equipment you have on your GT compare MSRP wise?? We don't have prices on the new GT yet. Difference may be an eye opener and a real testiment to how Hyundai has been able to adjust their pricing.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    MSRP back in 2004 was $17,414. That was with an automatic too, and I won't be getting that this time around. A Limited, which has standard moonroof, leather, and 17" alloys lists for $21,465... $4,000 more. But that 2012 Limited has quite a few features not available on that 2004 GT, e.g.:

    * heated front and rear seats (no heaters on the 2004)
    * 17" alloys (vs. 15")
    * ESC and EBA
    * 148 hp (vs. 138)
    * 29/40 EPA ratings (vs. 20/29)
    * 6 speed automatic with Shiftronic (vs. 4 speed)
    * 6 airbags (vs. 4)
    * daytime running lights
    * turn signal mirrors
    * front headrests with whiplash protection
    * TPM
    * rear center armrest with cupholders
    * telescopic steering column
    * audio controls on wheel
    * dual illuminated vanity mirrors
    * external temp display
    * XM radio
    * aux input + USB input with iPod integration
    * Bluetooth - hands-free phone
    * available technology package with nav system +++

    The biggest difference with pricing is, no one is getting $4000 discounts on new Elantras any more.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    I do recall this whole thread I'm following about the Elantra's MPGs, and how some people aren't even coming close. In fairness, some people are having issues with the Impreza's FE as well.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    But never with Mazda3, right? ;) :P
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Haven't read a huge amount either way about the SkyActiv FE, and I certainly wouldn't mind hearing it. Though people don't generally buy Mazdas for MPGs. :shades:

    CR did a couple of bog posts about cars that claimed and hit or exceeded the 40 MPG mark. They saw 43 MPG on the SkyActiv, 39 on the Elantra, and 35 on the Impreza. And 45 on the Hyundai Accent.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Yeah, CR did a straight hwy run at I believe 60 or 65 mph with the cruise on and did it two ways to account for any incline, wind etc. I believe the Elantra was about the only "40mpg" car they tested that didn't do better than EPA hwy rating.

    I don't remember the Imprezza being in that group cause they were testing only those that were rated at 40hwy or better. Maybe they did the Imprezza on a different similar test.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited March 2012
    Wow, that is a ton more equipment. Say one could get $1500 off MSRP on the new Elantra...that would put it at about $20k versus say $13 plus. Don't know what the extra equipment is worth but has to be at least $3000. So that appears to be about a $4k increase in pricing. Pretty impressive when you consider that's around 25%.

    But I will say that from what I've read about Mazda3 prices they haven't did too bad on the 3 either. Now the 6, that's another story. They raised prices on those too but I think the discounts are still pretty darn heavy.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    It was in a "cars that fall short of EPA" post.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited March 2012
    CR isn't the only organization testing cars to see if they can meet the EPA numbers:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/mileage-moment-of-truth-w- - e-put-40-mpg-claims-to-the-test-6651300

    But then, the Elantra, and Impreza (and Focus) aren't the Mazda3.

    As for the other post re people not buying Mazda3's for fuel economy... sure. That's why Mazda pumped a lot of money into the Skyactiv technology. And put it into the Mazda3 first. Because they don't think Mazda3 buyers care about fuel economy. :confuse:
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Well, most people care about the drive, not the FE. Mazda already mentioned SkyActiv is there to help them meet CAFE needs. But notice they didn't just stop at FE, they made sure to keep the fun-to-drive character. Why? Because for Mazda drivers, "zoom zoom" trumps FE and they know it, and they didn't want their customers abandoning them.

    Otherwise, if FE was the top priority, they could have pulled out the special tires, marshmallow suspension, electric powerless steering, Continuously Vile Transmission, and the like and still made the 40 MPG mark (I don't think those items are QUITE that bad, but some do ;) ). It would have driven like a Toyota at best, but it would have been cheaper than all this SkyActiv stuff.

    They spent all that money on the SkyActiv technology because Mazda buyers don't care about fuel economy...not as much as they care about the handling and feel of a Mazda. Mazda cares about 40 MPG because they have to meet upcoming CAFE standards. Mazda buyers care about driving Mazdas. :shades: I'm sure they don't MIND getting 40 MPG highway, but how many Mazda3 buyers would still buy a Mazda if it was still just the MZR engine lineup?
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    While I agree that the typical Mazda buyer has, in the past, bought mostly on the "drive" and MPG was a fairly minor consideration...but still a consideration. That's because, while Mazda's MPG was usually lower than most of the others, they were still competitive. But with other manufacturers making huge gains in MPG and even in handling(read Focus and Cruze) Mazda's customers were getting antsy about MPG. Things change and I think the Mazda buyer changed a little. I think they still are attracted to the way Mazdas drive but MPG is a lot higher on their list of the wants and needs then it used to be. Mazda responded to both the marketplace and their customers.

    Somthing doesn't have to be the top priority to still be a major priority. It's obvious that MPG has become a big priority for Mazda from their engineering and marketing. They realized that they couldn't just keep marketing zoom-zoom when their customers wanted more than that. I have a Mazda6 that gets better MPG than the 3 with the same engine. I certainly would not drop in size and get poorer MPG no matter how it handled. I don't feel I'm alone in that.I don't think anyone said FE was THE top priority for Mazda but it has become very important.

    You're right that CAFE is driving this as well as it is for all manufacturers. However, it's never just one thing forcing these changes, it's a combination of gas prices, govt regs, consumer demand, competition, etc.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    And a "marshmallow suspension" would help fuel economy... how? :confuse:

    If it's all about meeting CAFE standards, then I would expect to see zero advertising by Mazda, and zero mentions on their Web site, about the great fuel economy offered by Skyactiv. But go to mazdausa.com and then to the Mazda3 pages, and you see mention after mention about great fuel economy, 40 mph highway etc. etc. If that weren't important to buyers... why mention it?

    I for one would not be looking at the Mazda3 if it didn't have Skyactiv. Do you think I'm the only Mazda3 shopper like that? No. (See Mazda web site again... Mazda doesn't think so either.)
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    If it's all about meeting CAFE standards, then I would expect to see zero advertising by Mazda, and zero mentions on their Web site,

    And just how do you figure that? CAFE figures in number of cars SOLD. That's why Ford and GM always sold compacts, even at a loss. For a car to improve your CAFE numbers, it has to sell.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2012
    First, the AVERAGE driver doesn't pay much attention, certainly not constant attention, to the task of driving a manual insofar as FE is concerned. On the other hand the EPA test driver is being PAID to give CONSTANT attention to the COMMANDED (display screen) shifting task.

    Plus, if the EPA test procedure was not fully optimzed for proper shifting insofar as FE is concerned the manufacturer would have that fixed quickly.

    Lastly. Modern day automatic transmission designs have fuel saving modes that are simply not a possibility with a manual transmission. FULL fuel cut to the engine accompanied with sequential downshifts as required during coastdown periods, for instance. The use of the lockup clutch to bypass the lossy torque converter above 5MPH also helps.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..fun and engaging to drive..."

    Absolutely agree.

    But "engaging" within limits, sometimes, maybe even MOST times, I simply want to cruise along paying as little attention to the shifting task as is possible.

    Just as long as I don't get into engine "lugging" range what/why does it really matter.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Ah, but you assert people don't buy the Mazda3 because of fuel economy, but because of how it drives. So it would sell just fine no matter what Mazda advertised about fuel economy, right?

    Or... maybe Mazda buyers like everyone else who isn't independently wealthy actually do care about fuel economy.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    No, again, you're missing the point. Mazda needs to sell high MPG cars to improve their CAFE numbers. THEY want a high MPG solution. Their customers want Mazdas. If they wanted a generic high-MPG solution they'd go somewhere else. They want something that handles like a Mazda. That's the top priority.

    If Mazda buyers cared so much about fuel economy then why have they been driving Mazdas for so many years? If they want Priuses and Civic HFs they can go somewhere else. If your priority is fuel economy there are other solutions out there, and have been for quite a while. Assuming you don't care about Mazda handling. And if you do, and you're still driving a Mazda, then FE isn't your top priority, is it?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    SOMEONE is missing the point. ;)
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I agree with what you're saying but what point are you trying to make. I don't purport to know what the "average" driver pays attention to. I can guess but who really knows because everyone is different.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    You guys are having a p*ssing match over nothing. Mazda buyers want both the zoom-zoom AND MPG....what could be simpler. They used to not be so concerned with MPG but now are...just like everybody else.

    No, Mazda is not doing it just for CAFE...they are doing it for both CAFE and what customers want. Mazda owners have been willing to sacrifice a few MPG in the past but with gas prices the way they are they want MPG too. The answer doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be and is both!
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    SOMEONE gets the point!
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2012
    I was pointing out what the average stick shift driver DOESN'T pay enough attention to, I care not where that attention wanders off to.

    My point was that the average driver doesn't pay close enough attention (the mind wanders), consistently so, to the task of most proper shifting insofar as FE is concerned to result in manual transmissions, overall, yeilding better FE than automatics.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2012
    Anyone who thinks Mazda engineering can put a decent level of ZOOM-ZOOM into a FWD vehicle safely is in for a BIG surprise.

    FWD with manual transmission fun factor....ZIP.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Ok, I get it. I agree. Lots think that just because one buys a stick that better mpg naturally follows. Your point makes sense as just because one can drive a stick doesn't mean they drive it well and for maximum FE even if they think they are.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Ok now we disagree. There are tons of Mazda6 and Mazda3 drivers that would disagree also. It all depends on your personal definition of "zoom-zoom". Relative to other FWD cars they certainly handle near the top. It's all relative.

    I realize that RWD is the preferred but one can be very satisfied with the other. If somebody is only interested in RWD I fail to see why they would be interested in even commenting on the Mazda3 unless it is just to put it or Mazda down.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2012
    I'm "here" because my nephew called me last week to ask me what I thought about the new Mazda3. I hadn't a clue.

    But I did tell him that he should check out the CX-7 posts at Edmunds.com to see how the owners of that vehicle are being treated, ILL-TREATED, by the Mazda (st,d)ealers and Mazda corporate.

    Not a pretty picture.

    I'm not exactly adverse to FWD, I have (mistakenly***) owned a F/awd RX300 fro more than 10 years now. But "fun-factor" in a stick shift FWD vehicle...?? Sorta like playing Russian Roulette with the Grim-Reaper....sooner or later...

    ***Initially had a 2000 MY RX300 F/awd, but upgraded to an '01 to get VSC, HID, and GPS/Nav. Only realized after the fact that as of the '01 model year the earlier more robust F/awd system had been abandoned in favor of TC, Traction Control, F/awd implementation.

    TC braking implementations of F/awd and LSD systems are only "after-the-fact" systems. Meaning you must have already lost traction, wheelspin/slip has already occurred, before the "awd" mode kicks in.
  • woochiferwoochifer Member Posts: 32
    edited March 2012
    No, again, you're missing the point. Mazda needs to sell high MPG cars to improve their CAFE numbers. THEY want a high MPG solution. Their customers want Mazdas. If they wanted a generic high-MPG solution they'd go somewhere else. They want something that handles like a Mazda. That's the top priority.

    Who anointed you spokesperson for Mazda customers? You're certainly not speaking for my family.

    The point that you're not addressing is the shift occurring not only with the CAFE regs, but with the market itself. Demand has shifted to more fuel efficient cars, and other manufacturers have introduced highly competitive new models over the last couple of years. If Mazda did not do something to address the fuel economy issue, then they risked getting left in the dust due to simple market factors.

    We already own a Mazda5 and love how it drives (compared to other minivans and CUVs). My mom owns a Mazda3 2.5 and loves how it drives. My dad used to own a MPV and loved how it drove. But, we all hated the Mazdas' gas mileage. In the days of $2/gallon gas, it was tolerable. With $4/gallon gas and competing models stepping up with higher fuel economy and other improvements, there was no way Mazda could just stand pat and still keep my family as a customer.

    Survey after survey now finds fuel economy topping the list of consumer priorities. Mazda absolutely had to do something to improve their already precarious position (record operating loss last year). Improving fuel economy does nothing to degrade Mazda's signature handling prowess, but it at least keeps Mazda in the game.

    Fuel economy is not an either/or proposition, and the Skyactiv Mazda3 handles just as well as any other MZR-powered Mazda3.

    If Mazda buyers cared so much about fuel economy then why have they been driving Mazdas for so many years? If they want Priuses and Civic HFs they can go somewhere else. If your priority is fuel economy there are other solutions out there, and have been for quite a while. Assuming you don't care about Mazda handling. And if you do, and you're still driving a Mazda, then FE isn't your top priority, is it?

    Speaking for myself, if Mazda had not come out with the Skyactiv powertrain, I would not have bought a Mazda. I've always loved how the Mazdas drive, and if this was five years ago, I would likely have purchased a Mazdaspeed3. But, times change and priorities change. $4/gallon gas, rising household expenses, and economic uncertainty have a way of muscling their way into the car-buying process. And the 2.5L's 28/22 MPG is just no longer acceptable.

    Yes, drivability is important, so I was fine with axing the Prius and other soft-sprung snoozemobiles off my shopping list at the outset. But, it's not like the Mazda3 is the only decent handling compact hatch on the market. Competing models like the Focus and the Golf TDI are almost as sure-footed in a turn as the Mazda3, but they also blow away the 2.5L Mazda3's fuel economy. The Skyactiv drivetrain negates the fuel economy disadvantage, and allows the Mazda3 to compete on its strengths.

    Times change, and Mazda could have easily lost a loyal customer like myself if they hadn't come out with the Skyactiv drivetrain.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    edited March 2012
    This conversation about what motivates car buyers makes me recollect my decision last year to purchase a 2011 Mazda3 hatchback.

    My top five criteria (of about a dozen areas) were:
    - Cost (including discounts, incentives and financing charges)
    - Engine (i.e. size, HP & torque)
    - Fuel economy (based on Consumer Reports' Combined MPG)
    - Reliability (based on Consumer Reports reliability scores)
    - Weight (i.e. lighter is better).

    A decision sheet evaluated the Value proposition of competing vehicles. Some models while offering powerful engines were offset by excess weight and poor fuel economy; others while appearing to be a bargain were lacking in some important element (e.g. 4 disc brakes) and/or had higher financing charges. Eventually I narrowed the choice down to the 2011 Mazda3 hatchback 2.0L GX model at 0% financing for 5 years. Also, being an existing Mazda Protege5 owner, I knew the meaning of ZoomZoom already.

    Now a year later, I can safely say I am very satisfied with my choice.

    p.s. I was wary of the SkyActiv technology in its first year, but so far, it appears to be a robust technology and an excellent value at current fuel prices.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Probably a typo but if you've got the Skyactiv hatch your vehicle is a 2012 model...not a 2011.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    Just confirming, mine is the 2011 Mazda3 hatchback GX model not the 2012 Skyactiv model.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    My bad I guess? In 2011 the only engine offered in the hatch was the 2.5L. You said you had a 2.0L in the hatch which didn't come until 2012 with the skyactiv.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Oh, Can-a-da!
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Oh, yes. Forgot about the different specs up north. Was my bad. Tks.
  • woochiferwoochifer Member Posts: 32
    edited March 2012
    A decision sheet evaluated the Value proposition of competing vehicles. Some models while offering powerful engines were offset by excess weight and poor fuel economy; others while appearing to be a bargain were lacking in some important element (e.g. 4 disc brakes) and/or had higher financing charges. Eventually I narrowed the choice down to the 2011 Mazda3 hatchback 2.0L GX model at 0% financing for 5 years. Also, being an existing Mazda Protege5 owner, I knew the meaning of ZoomZoom already.

    Yeah, with the rising yen, there have been a lot of trade offs to hold the line on the MSRPs in the U.S. With the Mazda3, for example, they eliminated the 6-CD changer from the Bose/moonroof package, but only lowered the price from $1,500 to $1,400. They also moved the HID headlights from a standard feature on the Grand Touring trim to something you can only get after tacking on the $1,500 Technology Package.

    And it's not just the option packages where manufacturers have done some cost cutting. From your example, I'm surprised at how many manufacturers have gone back to standard rear drum brakes. And now you have VW downgrading the rear suspensions on the new Jettas and Passats to torsion bar setups, while the rest of the world still gets multilink rear suspensions with those models. At least with Mazda, so far they have avoided any significant downgrades with basic mechanicals.

    p.s. I was wary of the SkyActiv technology in its first year, but so far, it appears to be a robust technology and an excellent value at current fuel prices.

    Well, as far as I know Consumer Reports' current reliability rankings (which place Mazda at #2) do not yet account for the Skyactiv models. I actually expect Mazda to take a hit next year once CR adds the Skyactiv models to their rankings. CR had a blog post last year where they indicated that the reliability for a particular car model will typically improve by ~15% from the time that a particular generation is first introduced through its third production year. Often these moves up the reliability rankings indicate not much more than how old a company's car models are. Conversely, a drop in the rankings often indicate a large number of new models and/or technologies, as evidenced by Ford whose reliability rankings were hurt by a flurry of new introductions and the widespread introduction of touchscreen controls and dual clutch transmissions.

    With Mazda, last year they did not introduce any new models (except the Mazda5) while dropping the RX-8 and Tribute. This year, they will have potentially three updated models (Mazda3, CX-5, and Mazda6) plus an all-new engine series and two new transmissions.

    I bought the Skyactiv Mazda3 because it best met my shopping criteria, but I am aware of the risks inherent in buying a first production model with any new drivetrain design. Even the Ford Focus, which went out on a limb with brand new touchscreen and transmission designs, simply uses a direct injected version of the Duratec/MZR engine that it shared/s with Mazda and hasn't had reliability issues. In my test drives, I found the Skyactiv engine more refined than the Focus' Duratec GDI engine, but it is also more unproven over the long haul.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    edited March 2012
    Interesting. I agree that the yen is forcing a bunch of tradeoffs and that Mazda, so far, has "avoided significant downgrades". What I find a little more troubling is that Mazda in responding to the impact of this currency problem is considering moving more of their production offshore (i.e. away from their Hiroshima, Japan facility) and that Mexico is rumored to be a future possibility for vehicles destined for the North American market. I am revealing a bias by saying "made in Japan" (and "made in Wolfsburg") are one of the best indicators of quality in the automotive market.

    The problems with the Ford Focus of late are a shame as many of us were anticipating with great interest the introduction of the "European" version into the North American landscape. The strategy to pack MyFord into several models without adequate testing seems to have blackened the eye of Ford. Ford is not alone in this premature rollout of "newer, better, improved" models. In the recent past Consumer Reports showed how even the mighty Toyota, Honda, etc. failed with their latest models. The gist of the article was that it takes auto manufacturers frequently 2 to 3 years to work out the kinks from its newest models. The good news is that Mazda's SkyActiv technology has not had to be recalled but rather seems to be spreading across their product line.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    If you want to hold the line on price in the face of rising costs SOMETHING has to give. Given that some of Ford's products built in Mexico have turned out to be very reliable, I don't hold any bias regarding "made" anywhere. These days it has to do more with the process and procedures in place, as well as the attitude of the workforce. Both of those have more to do with corporate culture than they do factory location.

    I hope Mazda's Mexican plant is very successful, and supplies us with many fun SkyActiv zoom-zoom-mobiles in the future. And I hope that money they save makes them many profits to reinvest into more fun things to put into our cars. :shades:
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    "I was pointing out what the average stick shift driver DOESN'T pay enough attention to, I care not where that attention wanders off to.

    My point was that the average driver doesn't pay close enough attention (the mind wanders), consistently so, to the task of most proper shifting insofar as FE is concerned to result in manual transmissions, overall, yeilding better FE than automatics. "

    Couldn't be further from the truth. The EPA tests do require attention to shifting to keep up with the acceleration requirements of the test, however that shifting is much more aggressive than a non attentive stick shift driver.

    You absolutely don't have to be paying attention to shifting to beat the EPA numbers. The EPA tests on the stick shift CX-5 are good numbers, but that does not mean they are any less valid than the numbers for the automatic.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    edited March 2012
    I hope Mazda's Mexican plant is very successful
    Agreed.
  • woochiferwoochifer Member Posts: 32
    What I find a little more troubling is that Mazda in responding to the impact of this currency problem is considering moving more of their production offshore (i.e. away from their Hiroshima, Japan facility) and that Mexico is rumored to be a future possibility for vehicles destined for the North American market. I am revealing a bias by saying "made in Japan" (and "made in Wolfsburg") are one of the best indicators of quality in the automotive market.

    The issue Mazda's running into is that they make a higher proportion of their cars in Japan than anyone, which leaves them very vulnerable to currency and supply chain fluctuations. Mazda's also about to phase out the U.S. production line that they jointly operate with Ford, where they build the Mazda6. The new Mazda6 coming out this fall will be built in Japan, which will make Mazda's production even more concentrated in Japan.

    My understanding is that Mazda's Mexico plant is intended to serve the domestic Mexican market and South America, where Mazda sales have been growing. From what I've read, the initial plan is to continue to make most of the cars destined for the U.S. in Japan, but obviously having a plant in Mexico would make the switchover to Mexican production for U.S. models relatively easy to do.

    The problems with the Ford Focus of late are a shame as many of us were anticipating with great interest the introduction of the "European" version into the North American landscape. The strategy to pack MyFord into several models without adequate testing seems to have blackened the eye of Ford.

    Ford had been doing very well until the debacle with MyFordTouch and their dual clutch transmissions. Irony is that the Mexican-built Ford Fusions have had an excellent reliability record, certainly better than the American-built Focus and IIRC even better than the Mazda6, which shares its platform with the Fusion.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    Interesting points.

    ALERT: TANGENT BELOW!
    I'm sure Ford will come through this tough patch. But, this is an era of frenetic change where many good companies are suffering under excruciating competition. This form of competition sometimes leads to the thinning of the herd down to one or two players resulting ironically in more limited choice. Examples abound. In Canada, RIM (the maker of the Blackberry), a highly successful and profitable company, went through an arduous period in the last couple of years with the amazing rise of Apple. You have to hope that there is room enough for a number of players so that we can have choices in the future. Choices like Mazda!
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Sorry, but the "state" of Blackberry had more to with the patent lawsuit and the outcome of same.

    I find it interesting to the extreme that is is Mazda and not Ford that has taken advantage of the FE aspects of DFI while Ford as gone after buyers with the "boy-racer", 0-60, mentality. Up to now it has been Ford that led Mazda into the world of high technology.

    Can't say I don't understand Mazda's wish for a divorce.

    Mazda..Skyactive...Adoption of DFI which allowed a base/native compression ratio increase to 12:1 or even 14:1, yeilding a substantively increased FE along with a reasonable increase in HP/torque.

    Ford...EcoBoost (TwinForce)...Adoption of DFI but also turbo boost. Taking avantage of the ability to increase the compression ratio but only with BOOST, less than 1% of the time. The remainder of the time, ~99%, the time, the EcoBoost/TwinForce engine runs in derated/detuned mode, substandard CR.

    One can only hope that by the time the C-Max comes to market later this year Ford will have learned their lesson and adopted/licensed the SkyActiv technology from Mazda, a real role reversal, that.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited March 2012
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited March 2012
    If you wish to sell to those of the "boy-racer", 0-60, mentality, definitely a DEEP-POCKET minority "set", while at the same time having appeal to the MAJORITY, GROWING MAJORITY....$5 gallon soon, more probably than otherwise. Then combine the 2 technologies.

    Use SkyActive for the majority market.

    For the MINORITY market add an $4,000.00 option (equal to the current EcoBoost markup).

    Base/native CR cognizant with the use of DFI, 12:1 or even 14:1. Then increase the "virtual" CR under BOOST by (pre-)CHILLING (34F?) a volume of coolant using the A/C. The REQUIRED intercooler could serve as a storage reservoir/accumulator provided the intake airflow routing was bypassed(***) except for the ~1% Boost periods.

    Eliminate the throttle plate by adding a variable volume positive displacment SC. Variable frequency AC inverter providing power to the permanent magnetic synchronous AC motor driving the SC.

    *** The intake airflow bypasses the pre-chilled intercooler unless the the accelerator pedal position dictates the use of BOOST. The level of Boost pressure would then dictate the amount of flow directed, diverted, through the intercooler in much the way that modern day HVAC systems make use of the reheat/remix airflow path to moderate the air outflow temperature.

    Net HP/torque increase above current EcoBoost/TwinForce for equivalent engine displacement volume could be 30-50%.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    When you look at Ford's 2.0L in the Focus, they claim to have done some of the same things, increasing compression (to the same 12:1!) and reducing friction. They got 5 more HP, some more torque, and 2 MPG less in FE. No mention of new design pistons or anything, so it kind of makes me wonder, was all the SkyActiv stuff actually needed or a waste of money? And if it isn't a waste, how long are those Ford engines going to last?

    Regardless, Mazda has the better transmissions. Ford tried, but that PowerShift thing just wasn't the right choice. Besides, a shift TOGGLE? A TOGGLE? On the SHIFTER?

    I may hold out to at least see the Elantra GT. It's power to weight ratio might actually be a smidge better than the Mazda3 SkyActiv (0.3 pound different per HP) and it looks to have a lot of gadgetry in a very nice cockpit. But so far Hyundai has not proven to me that they can do either suspension or steering properly.
  • chickraechickrae Member Posts: 44
    If you don't like the way the suspension or the steering is why hold out for the Elantra GT. I was thinking of doing the same thing before making my choice of between the Elantra GT or the Mazda 3 touring w/skyactiv, but I have read so much lately in the Hyundai forums about the steering that I think I will end up going with the mazda. I have yet to hear anything bad about this car and that it's a fun car to drive. That along with the price, gas mileage and general style is pulling me towards choosing it.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Because the Hyundai doesn't exactly exist yet: it's coming out this summer (Early summer apparently, maybe June). It's theoretically the i30 but no one knows if the suspension and steering tuning will be exactly the same on the GT as it is on the i30.

    I don't like the suspension or steering on my 2009 Elantra Touring. According to reviews of the new i30 it's improved noticeably. So it remains to be seen if the GT will have the same setup, or a "tweaked" one for the US, and whether that setup is any better or not. The steering in the Elantra GT will NOT be the same steering setup as in the current Elantra though: that much is known. It's apparently going to be a selectable-effort system, with settings for light resistance, variable resistance, and heavy resistance. Or something along those lines.

    Ideally I'd take the Mazda drivetrain, suspension, and steering, and drop it into the Elantra GT's body and interior. :shades:
  • chickraechickrae Member Posts: 44
    Yes it would be nice if you could find a car that has it all. I also like the Elantra styling and the warranty. I really look the looks of the mazda 3 and with the skyactiv it sounds like it will beat the elantra 29/40 because everyone in the Elantra real world actual mileage forum claim they aren't getting that anyways. I will know Friday because I am making a decision then. Elantra or Mazda 3 touring...I will have one of them. I might test drive the focus too. I am reading alot of positives from owners of that car.

    Maybe you're right the gt might handle better, so it might be worth the wait for you.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    ... because everyone in the Elantra real world actual mileage forum claim they aren't getting that anyways.

    Uh, no... not "everyone." :sick:

    Check out the Mazda3 discussion and you'll see not everyone there is reporting hitting the EPA ratings. That is true with any car: some people will get close to the EPA numbers, some will not, and some will exceed them.

    If it really concerns you, do what I recommended awhile back and RENT each car for a couple days at least. Or at least take each on a long test drive that lets you drive them as you would in your real world. Don't depend on reports from other people, who likely don't drive their cars exactly like you drive yours.
  • chickraechickrae Member Posts: 44
    Ok not everyone then but the majority. I think I read about every page of that forum and the more I read the more discouraged I got about the Elantra. I haven't ruled it out, but I am taking that and the Mazda on very long test drives this weekend. I also took a survey at work and 10 out of 10 people given a choice between the two cars picked Mazda. I joined the forums here to get opinions of others that had purchased the vehicles and it's been interesting to say the least.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles