For those eagerly awaiting Gen 3

[shadonoz]

Don't Expect A New Mazda Model In The Next 2 Years
from motor1.com

Mazda Won’t Launch Any New Models Until 2023 When It Gets Next-Gen Platform
from carscoops.com

With no launches in next 2 years, Mazda rides rough road
from Nikkei

And from that last article:

Skyactiv-X has yet to deliver on the hype. Mazda says it is installed in only 4% of Mazda3s and 2% of CX-30s -- far less than the 25% to 30% it had envisioned.

The hurdle is the added price of around $6,300 compared with regular gasoline engines.

And you thought the diesel was expensive....

 

[velocityc6]

If skyactive-x isn't taking off now....it never will imo. Disappointing considering the hype during development.

 

[Avoidin Deer]

Guess I'll be keeping my Reserve for a while.

Sucks about the Skyactiv-x.
You gotta give them props for pushing the engineering envelope.

 

[Chocolate]

And you thought the diesel was expensive....

It still is, and the fuel is more expensive as well. The Skyactiv-X program was ambitious, but has not been a success, yet.

 

[Paulson]

All that R&D for an unproven technology that tacks on an extra 6k to the cost of a vehicle. How about just building a hybrid like everyone else...CX-5 hybrid would be nice competition with CRV Hybrid and RAV4 Hybrid.

 

[jaycal6]

All that R&D for an unproven technology that tacks on an extra 6k to the cost of a vehicle. How about just building a hybrid like everyone else...CX-5 hybrid would be nice competition with CRV Hybrid and RAV4 Hybrid.

Seriously. This seems like a huge misstep by Mazda. Hopefully it doesn’t hurt them too badly.

 

[jcrout7992]

All that R&D for an unproven technology that tacks on an extra 6k to the cost of a vehicle. How about just building a hybrid like everyone else...CX-5 hybrid would be nice competition with CRV Hybrid and RAV4 Hybrid.

Hopefully their partnership with Toyota buys them some battery/hybrid tech.

 

[santa]

Don't Expect A New Mazda Model In The Next 2 Years
from motor1.com

Mazda Won’t Launch Any New Models Until 2023 When It Gets Next-Gen Platform
from carscoops.com

With no launches in next 2 years, Mazda rides rough road
from Nikkei

And from that last article:

Skyactiv-X has yet to deliver on the hype. Mazda says it is installed in only 4% of Mazda3s and 2% of CX-30s -- far less than the 25% to 30% it had envisioned.

The hurdle is the added price of around $6,300 compared with regular gasoline engines.

And you thought the diesel was expensive....

But the Skyactiv-X isn't even offered in the US, so why show the price difference in $?
In the second article they quote Mazda Europe chief executive saying that "60 per cent of Mazda3 orders have the Skyactiv-X engine, while 45 per cent of CX-30 models sold also have the unit."

So I'll wait a bit to see what happens with the Skyactiv-X.

 

[Unobtanium]

If they can put SA-X into an i6 2.7L or something...it WILL sell.

If not, hybrid 4 cylinders will kill it. The RAV4 Prime does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds and gets 40mpg.

 

[yrwei52]

Don't Expect A New Mazda Model In The Next 2 Years
from motor1.com

Mazda Won’t Launch Any New Models Until 2023 When It Gets Next-Gen Platform
from carscoops.com

With no launches in next 2 years, Mazda rides rough road
from Nikkei

And from that last article:

Skyactiv-X has yet to deliver on the hype. Mazda says it is installed in only 4% of Mazda3s and 2% of CX-30s -- far less than the 25% to 30% it had envisioned.

The hurdle is the added price of around $6,300 compared with regular gasoline engines.

And you thought the diesel was expensive....

Started with a simple and efficient Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) on design, ended up with a complex Spark-Controlled Compression Ignition (SPCCI) SkyActiv-X which costs $6,300 more than a SkyActiv-G with minimum gain on fuel efficiency and horse power. This simply won’t work even from engineering point of view.

And I said it here 2 years ago ⋯

 

[santa]

Where's the $6300 price difference coming from, is that official from Mazda USA or is it just made up?
In Germany the price difference on the CX-30 2,0 122HP to Skyactiv-X 180 hp is $2700 (converted from €) and from 2,0 150hp to Skyactiv-X 180hp it's $1600. This is for the FWD version, for the AWD version the price difference is $4500 and $3500.
Here in Denmark, even with our rather high taxes on cars, the difference is about the same as in Germany (a bit higher).

 

[dougal]

All that R&D for an unproven technology that tacks on an extra 6k to the cost of a vehicle. How about just building a hybrid like everyone else...CX-5 hybrid would be nice competition with CRV Hybrid and RAV4 Hybrid.

Or really be ahead of the game and drop the petrol engine and go straight to an electric vehicle.

 

[dougal]

But the Skyactiv-X isn't even offered in the US, so why show the price difference in $?
In the second article they quote Mazda Europe chief executive saying that "60 per cent of Mazda3 orders have the Skyactiv-X engine, while 45 per cent of CX-30 models sold also have the unit."

So I'll wait a bit to see what happens with the Skyactiv-X.

Yeah, I though I read those numbers before as well. I wonder if dealers purchased lots of the sky-X but have not sold many.

 

[Chocolate]

Or really be ahead of the game and drop the petrol engine and go straight to an electric vehicle.

The MX-30 is a total compliance car, with a small battery capacity. 130 miles of range (in perfect conditions, warm weather, and driven slowly - actual is less) is not competitive. Hopefully the second effort will be better.

 

[ALafya]

IMHO, as a previous Prius owner, Hybrid vehicles are just a stepping stone to the real thing, which are EVs. As such, Mazda should avoid them and go directly to full EVs.
It is true Toyota has priced, e.g. RAV4 Hybrid as a very attractive option for consumers and finally it does get pretty excellent fuel economy, even making them faster 0-60 etc.
However, I think most people will still get a regular gas RAV4, so the impact of a more efficient ICE could be more significant if most people get it.
For SkyActiv-X, $6300 is a deal breaker, but I doubt this is the real cost. I think Mazda does not think that currently offering the X in the US to save on gas will be appealing even for a smaller incremental cost.
Launching a new engine is hard for a small company. So far, it looks like a successful launch, though I am not sure about the actual real-life fuel savings it offers.
In theory, it could be extremely efficient. The question is if HCCI can be maintained through most of the day-to-day load range, as good old HCSI is used by the X engine in high RPM.

 

[yrwei52]

⋯ For SkyActiv-X, $6300 is a deal breaker, but I doubt this is the real cost. I think Mazda does not think that currently offering the X in the US to save on gas will be appealing even for a smaller incremental cost.
Launching a new engine is hard for a small company. So far, it looks like a successful launch, though I am not sure about the actual real-life fuel savings it offers.
In theory, it could be extremely efficient. The question is if HCCI can be maintained through most of the day-to-day load range, as good old HCSI is used by the X engine in high RPM.

The fuel saving on SykActiv-X is not impressive, so I don’t believe it’s a successful launch in Europe.

This looks more and more like diesel failure, by the time it gets here it will be to late and billions of dollars waisted.
If they invested in hybrid technology instead of skyactive X they would be in much better position now.

”While it produces almost the same HP (not the same, 176 vs 186), it only gains 9% better fuel economy and costs 27% more”

Here’s a paragraph from Car and Driver’s article back on June 5, 2019:

“Most impressively, the Mazda 3 equipped with the Skyactiv-X 2.0-liter engine gets 50 mpg according to the optimistic NEDC European combined test cycle. On that governing body's highway cycle, which benefits the compression-ignition setup even more, the thriftiest Skyactiv-X-equipped Mazda 3 scores 60 mpg.”

 

[ALafya]

The fuel saving on SykActiv-X is not impressive, so I don’t believe it’s a successful launch in Europe.

"Launch" does not say anything about how efficient or how much it costs.
It only says that (i) people are buying cars with this engine (ii) the engine is not mired with quality issues / fails etc.

Hence, it is a successful launch.

 

[Unobtanium]

IMHO, as a previous Prius owner, Hybrid vehicles are just a stepping stone to the real thing, which are EVs. As such, Mazda should avoid them and go directly to full EVs.
It is true Toyota has priced, e.g. RAV4 Hybrid as a very attractive option for consumers and finally it does get pretty excellent fuel economy, even making them faster 0-60 etc.
However, I think most people will still get a regular gas RAV4, so the impact of a more efficient ICE could be more significant if most people get it.
For SkyActiv-X, $6300 is a deal breaker, but I doubt this is the real cost. I think Mazda does not think that currently offering the X in the US to save on gas will be appealing even for a smaller incremental cost.
Launching a new engine is hard for a small company. So far, it looks like a successful launch, though I am not sure about the actual real-life fuel savings it offers.
In theory, it could be extremely efficient. The question is if HCCI can be maintained through most of the day-to-day load range, as good old HCSI is used by the X engine in high RPM.

I disagree. I'd never own an EV. I would own a Hybrid.

 

[Mazdiod2]

With gas prices staying low and even going down people don't have the interest in fuel economy.

 

[Unobtanium]

The fuel saving on SykActiv-X is not impressive, so I don’t believe it’s a successful launch in Europe.



”While it produces almost the same HP (not the same, 176 vs 186), it only gains 9% better fuel economy and costs 27% more”

Here’s a paragraph from Car and Driver’s article back on June 5, 2019:

“Most impressively, the Mazda 3 equipped with the Skyactiv-X 2.0-liter engine gets 50 mpg according to the optimistic NEDC European combined test cycle. On that governing body's highway cycle, which benefits the compression-ignition setup even more, the thriftiest Skyactiv-X-equipped Mazda 3 scores 60 mpg.”

But, that's HALF a liter less displacement. It is actually making 21hp more than the 2.0L G engine, and probably significantly more torque, as well. That said, even "scaling it up" to the 2.5L and using percentage gains, it is nowhere near as potent as the 2.5L Turbo, even on 87 octane, and therein lies the rub, for me. It is just failing to deliver what a much "simpler" solution is capable of, at least in I4 guise. Might it be a beast as a 3.2L I6 or something? Dunno...wish we could find out