njansenv wrote:
Audi A8 is another, Corvette is another... there are certainly more than you are implying. Automakers are trying REALLY hard to reduce weight, but consumers want the extras. Read a few magazines that are targeted at OEM's (I like Vehicle Dynamics) and you'll see how hot a topic weight reduction is.
My very brief google searching suggests that the current marketed Skyactive 3 is within 50 lbs of it's predecessor.
You have a tendency to take this stuff personally (or at least appear to). Relax.
Corvette has not gotten lighter except for changing the steel "chassis" for an aluminum one in the Z06 and ZR1. Overall weight is still up C6 over C5. I don't know anything about the A8 but I heard they went from steel to aluminum for the uni-body, so I can certainly see that one. Point is, it's not many, and it's only the very latest ones (like the Merc pointed out that I didn't know about).
The current SkyActiv 3 is the old 3 with a SkyActiv engine and trans. Nothing else has been done. The CX-5 is the first all-SkyActiv model, and it has no direct predecessor. Word is the next 3 will be 300-400Lbs lighter overall.
I'm not taking it personally, I'm just trying to point out that SkyActiv is neither A; pure marketing or B: just drivetrains. A lot of people here seem to have some flash-in-the-pan opinions about the whole thing and dismiss it when it's actually a big deal. I just think the whole tech aspect of it is interesting
To paraphrase Tom Robbins: Forums are like baskets of cherry tomatoes, when you bite into them you never know which way they will squirt.
Interesting discussions on marketing, product philosophy, and technological evolution.
But, I take it that no one here has actually driven the 3 with the Skyactiv?
Two thoughts...
1) I do think all manufacturers must be pursuing this to varying degrees, just because it's going to be necessary to be viable. Not to say that Mazda doesn't seem to have taken at least a significantly large incremental step in several areas all at once, to which I say "bravo!" I look forward to similar unveilings from other makes.
2) "SkyActiv". As if any sort of semi-coherent all-at-once improvement wasn't going to come with a marketing blitz attached... Part of me thinks we should just be happy it didn't come with a significantly more embarrassing name. I think Mazda's batch of improvements is laudable, and I'm not sure whether I feel sillier talking about the coolness of SkyActiv, or whether it'd be worse to be talking about the 2012-13 Mazdas while carefully not using the name so as to avoid feeling silly...
In reply to Basil Exposition:
I have (driven the SkyActiv3). It's pretty good, but clouded by the old 3's chassis. It just feels like a 2.3 3 from 2005, albeit with a smoother engine and more gears. "Refined" is the word I used. It was only a test drive, so I can't comment on the gas mileage, but I could be very happy with that "level" of performance and 40MPG.
I'm planning on an extended drive of the CX-5 when it gets here locally. I'm also keeping the hope alive for the diesel (that's the one that really intrigues me). 40MPG + 340 FtLbs!!?!?! Yes, please! 
Javelin wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
Except your company is putting the engines in gigantic fat ass cars with lousy aero. Mazda is actually addressing *every* part of the car. You guys only did the engines. 
shrug
I thought skyactive was about the powertrain.
As in the cx7 and cx9 as well as the 3 and 2 etc.
alfadriver wrote:
Javelin wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
Except your company is putting the engines in gigantic fat ass cars with lousy aero. Mazda is actually addressing *every* part of the car. You guys only did the engines.
*shrug*
I thought skyactive was about the powertrain.
As in the cx7 and cx9 as well as the 3 and 2 etc.
Nope. SkyActiv is an "engineering philosophy" is kind of the easiest way to put it. There's at least 3 engines and 2 transmissions and now one chassis/suspension under the umbrella released already. The SkyActiv (drivetrain-only) 3 is the only current Mazda product to have any of it besides the CX-5.
BTW - Whichever suit at Ford that made the name change from "TwinForce" to "EcoBoost" better have gotten a sweet bonus. Nice marketing move. 
In reply to Javelin:
So, philosophically, are the skyactive cars better than the competition? And based on the hype, one would expect it to be a lot better.
You just posted that the current 3 is shadowed by the previous chassis. Do we get anything for the apparent light weight and better aero?
Javelin wrote:
40MPG + 340 FtLbs!!?!?! Yes, please!
They better make a truck and put it in it, or I am going to be verrrrryyyyyy pissed off
I think Mazda got out of the truck business in North America about 19 years ago, so I doubt you will see a truck HiTempguy. I would like to see a truck with that SkyActiv-D engine as well, but I know we don't get the cool models here in N.A.
alfadriver wrote:
In reply to Javelin:
So, philosophically, are the skyactive cars better than the competition? And based on the hype, one would expect it to be a lot better.
You just posted that the current 3 is shadowed by the previous chassis. Do we get anything for the apparent light weight and better aero?
They're both the same chassis... the facelift is just fugly.
Disregard this post... i completely missed the point, sorry 'bout that.
Mazdax605 wrote:
I think Mazda got out of the truck business in North America about 19 years ago, so I doubt you will see a truck HiTempguy. I would like to see a truck with that SkyActiv-D engine as well, but I know we don't get the cool models here in N.A.
What better way to get back in than with a kickass Diesel motor?
I like my 2011 CX-7. Kinda wish that I'd waited for this generation tho.
alfadriver wrote:
In reply to Javelin:
So, philosophically, are the skyactive cars better than the competition? And based on the hype, one would expect it to be a lot better.
You just posted that the current 3 is shadowed by the previous chassis. Do we get anything for the apparent light weight and better aero?
I'll let you know as soon as I drive a full SkyActiv car. The 3 has been acknowledged from the start as a stop-gap in the mid-cycle as opposed to the full enchilada. It still apparently got some aero and other tweaks though.
And yes, based upon the marketing, it's a remarkably better package, even in the compromised 3. I'd take a SkyActiv 3 over a Focus SFE, Cruze Eco, or Elantra without question. (And yes, I've driven all 4).
Zomby woof wrote: Right beside it was the ad for the new Diesel motor. They bragged about the 14-1 compression being the lowest of any diesel available, blah, blah, blah.
They get a 14:1 Diesel to start and run (involves some GOOFY exhaust gas ping-pong in the exhaust manifold while cranking) and they have a Diesel that has NOx low enough to meet CA emissions without DEF.
alfadriver wrote:
You mean the same path that ford is already taking? Im sure there are more, but with mazda formerly being part of f, its an eaiser match..
Looking at the engine specs, the three and the focus are identical except for bore and stroke- di, dual vct, compression, almost the same power torque f-e, etc. And mazda talked about a 1.6 right, just like the upcoming fusion...
I applaud mazda for doing it, no question. Very cool. But they are not the only ones going down this path.
Ford is doing some good stuff, yes. I like the Focus motor: 160 HP and 146 torque out of just 2.0 liters (normally aspirated). It's flexible and revvy and hauls a 2900# car to 26/36 MPG. But I feel that Mazda is the company that is doing the most to engineer the >efficient< automobile for >enthusiast drivers<, which is to say, us, the GRM crowd, rather than just giving in to the CAFE beam counters and building blah econoboxes.
David
