mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
Dave Coleman makes me want to be a better man...
2017~2024 Fuel Grade
- Thread starter Pitter
- Start date
Dave Coleman makes me want to be a better man...
- :
- State of Jefferson
- :
- 2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
Please post them again since it's almost universally believed that timing will retard but not advance in response to octane rating and knocking.
Many of us haven't seen your posts, and others may have forgotten.
Even just links. Would it kill ya to do it again?
It would have to be with identical weather conditions.
Can you repost it again please? I haven't read it but it sure seems interesting
- :
- Soon to be 2.5T CX-5
Have you never ran yours on 87?
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
And identical vehicle. Each engine will have different performance from factory. If the dyno testing with different gasoline grades on the same CX-5 under the same environment, the increase of several hps still cant prove Mazda did something such as advancing the timing to higher octane gas. It can be other causes or within performance variance for each dyno testing.
If Mazda did take advantage of higher octane gas on SA-G 2.5L, theyd say so and it wont be just several hps (see 2.5T). And the tuners wouldnt have too much room to work on to increase the horsepower with higher octane gas like they currently did.
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
Please post them again since it's almost universally believed that timing will retard but not advance in response to octane rating and knocking.
Many of us haven't seen your posts, and others may have forgotten.
Even just links. Would it kill ya to do it again?
Not trouble at all. Here is one of the last ones.
http://news.aaa-calif.com/internal_...46/files/20168/Premium-Fuel-REPORT-FINAL2.pdf
http://news.aaa-calif.com/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/46/files/20168/Premium-Fuel-REPORT-FINAL2.pdf
Somewhere else there are more dynocharts that show the diff between grades, I am looking...(confused)
- :
- State of Jefferson
- :
- 2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
Thanks for that. All it seems to say is that there is no advantage in any respect to using premium when it's designed for regular, but most of us agree on that.
Looking forward to anything else.
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
That report I posted has the dyno charts and the 3 horsepower gain for the Mazda skyactiv 2.0 motor in it the Mazda motor was one of the only ones to notice a gain.
The same Mazda motors are rated at different HP ratings all over the world due to variances in fuel quality available.
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yeah, 3-hp increase, from 126.xx hp to 129.xx hp (2.36% gain) on dyno test for maximum horsepower with premium gas is insignificant to say the best. Use 87-octane ethanol-free gas may have more gain on horsepower than this.
Did I mention that the maximum horsepower is 155 hp on SkyActiv-G 2.0L based on Mazda's specification?
- :
- 2019 CX-5 Signature
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
Yes that is just one more variable.
- :
- State of Jefferson
- :
- 2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
Thanks for pointing that out. I just read the summaries and findings. It's a lot of info. I'll look again.
edit: interesting. They clearly think it's insignificant, but it is measurable. Wonder how the 2.5 would fare.
You mentioned that Dave Coleman had something to say about it? He's the best source I know of. Straight shooter, even if he is a spokesman. If there's something about Mazda's engine management, he should know.
Last edited:
- :
- State of Jefferson
- :
- 2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
Similar discrepancies with the Dodge and Toyota. Wheel HP vs crank maybe?
- :
- CX5 GT
As far as I know difference between North America and other countries is the compression. North American engines have lower compression ratio so that they can run on 87 grade.
In Europe and other countries they dont have such low grade (and octane is measured differently but still 87 is lower that whats available in Europe as comparison).
Horsepower does not matter plus it peaks in so high rpms in non turbo engines that most people rarely drive in that way. What matters more is torque and that is what you feel and moves the car primarily in day to day scenarios
I agree that non ethanol fuel is better but its not available everywhere nowadays and slowly would be disappearing.
I drive on 91 only for other reasons and I am happy with it. But as we have said many times, everybody is free to put what they want. The horsepower torque benefit is too small for non turbo engine.
For the turbo engine its another matter. It is better for it.
In Europe and other countries they dont have such low grade (and octane is measured differently but still 87 is lower that whats available in Europe as comparison).
Horsepower does not matter plus it peaks in so high rpms in non turbo engines that most people rarely drive in that way. What matters more is torque and that is what you feel and moves the car primarily in day to day scenarios
I agree that non ethanol fuel is better but its not available everywhere nowadays and slowly would be disappearing.
I drive on 91 only for other reasons and I am happy with it. But as we have said many times, everybody is free to put what they want. The horsepower torque benefit is too small for non turbo engine.
For the turbo engine its another matter. It is better for it.
- :
- Canada
From what I gather, Mazda's 2.0 engine does produce 2-3% more hp on 93 vs 87. The charts on pages 16-17 show that in highway driving, there is little to no difference in ignition timing data. During aggressive driving, there is a notable increase in ignition timing. Thus the statement made by mazdadude in post #5 is accurate, IF the 2.5 motor behaves the same as the 2.0. I don't know if anyone has tested the 2.5 engine in a similar fashion.
All that aside, 93 is usually over 20% more expensive than 87. Paying 20% more for a 2-3% return on a 126hp engine hardly seems worth it, BUT we are free to fill the tank with whatever we choose.
All that aside, 93 is usually over 20% more expensive than 87. Paying 20% more for a 2-3% return on a 126hp engine hardly seems worth it, BUT we are free to fill the tank with whatever we choose.
