CX-9 Skyactiv 2.5L turbo engine
- Thread starter CC58
- Start date
Mazda uses advanced CNC robots to machine their engines. This allows them to scale motors from 1.3L to 2.5L quickly. This technology makes it unlikely the 2.5L turbo motor is the same as 2.5L CX-5 motor because its so easy to make engineering changes. To withstand 17psi, the engine block is probably reinforced and o-ringed, heavier rods, pistons, and crank. It probably has the same footprint though and may drop into a CX-5. Its probably closely engineered to withstand exactly the power it was designed to make.
Last edited:
Actually a lot of things are shared.
The fuel system is shared, along with fuel pump, injection components, block and lower block,
Cylinder head design is different, pistons are different, I would imagine rods are different but I would bet money on the crank being the same.
Also Mazda scaled the engines on the skyactiv. 1.5L 2.0L and 2.5L share nothing. they are literally "scaled" versions of eachother. with the 1.5L having the smallest block and 2.5L having the largest. Cam length is different, cylinder head length and port location, all of it.
Last edited:
That's how it's done. It can withstand more power but of course longevity suffers. It's a balancing act.
Of course most owners put a premium on longevity over a few additional horsepower (unless you're racing competively)
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
This is another bs blanket statement. Of course, nothing. Once again, there's thousands and thousands of 4G63, 2jz, 3jz, ej20, etc running hundreds of hp to the wheels over stock with stock internals, and getting 6 figure mileage numbers like a stock car to boot. Are there catostrophic instances, sure, but so are they with non modded cars also. Unfortunately, I know. We get it, you don't want to mod your cx-5, and you know jack crap about tuning, but to throw a blanket statement up that of course this and that is gonna happen is utter bs...
Once again incorrect.
If that is how mazda builds their engines, than the MZR DISI would not be capable of over 400WHP stock engine. The 2.5L MZR would not be capable of increasing it's base power rating 3 fold on stock engine (yeah from 167 to 500+, it's been done). There have been folks running perfectly fine running double the rated crank HP on stock components. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Each and every component in the rotating assembly has fatigue limits, tensile strength limits, etc. Once one of any of the many limits have been exceeded, a component breaks. There is no "standard HP, TQ" or power rating that will determine when a component breaks.
It can withstand more power but of course longevity suffers. - Zero proof behind that statement. Zero.
That has to be the biggest bulls*** statement about dynos I have ever seen in my life. It is really sad that someone can go around posting some of the most ill-informed, incorrect, biased, and down right wrong statements like this. The worst part is some people may be inclined to believe some of the garbage you spew. This statement is basically saying ALL dyno operators who use a dyno to advertise their work are liars, theives, con artists, etc. thank God such idiocy hasn't spread past this forum.
Why are you even allowed to post here???????????????????
So when you take a bone stock speed3, give it full bolt ons and tune it on E30 you should only see "a few HP"? What ? What ? What ? What ? What ? What ?
And before the counter arguement is "oh that's boost I was talking about N/A" I say simply this : Honda K20.
It is quite easy to tell when a dyno sheet has been tampered with if you actually knew anything about dynos.
Last edited:
- :
- 2024 Toyota GHH MAX
2016 Mazda CX-5 GT (Wife)
1990 Miata (Zoom Zoom!)
Longevity of the engine components may or may not suffer depending on tuning, but the other drive train components and components down the line from there may suffer depending on their tolerances.
Truth is a vast majority of owners will never keep the car to its end anyways.
Truth is a vast majority of owners will never keep the car to its end anyways.
"Suffer" is a loaded term. What's common knowledge is that if you take a mechanical assembly and put more load on it, wear will increase. That's why more powerful engines have bigger cranks, more bearing surface area, etc., every component is designed for longevity and reliability for the job it was designed to do. More load = more wear.
That's true, and I'm not saying a small bump in output will cause everything to fail in 50,000 miles. What I AM saying is there is a reason manufacturers limit boost pressures. Because the engine, transmission, drive shafts, differentials, etc. are designed with safe margins for it's designed power output. Increase power, decrease those margins.
Basic engineering 101.
C
CX5_Pete
How? This would be good to know.
Wow! But it is common knowledge that dynos are often used to: 1) Show gains that don't exist or 2) exaggerate smaller gains into larger gains. Not always but sometimes.
That's all I'm saying and I'm surprised you don't know about this. Here an example of a non-controversial article covering this subject:
http://www.badasscars.com/index.cfm...duct_id=64/category_id=13/mode=prod/prd64.htm
Umm.... because I add a lot of value to the forum by pointing out common fallacies and misconceptions? If people are fed bad info, they will be misinformed and unable to make fact based decisions.
First you claim that dyno charts don't lie. Then you claim that it's easy to tell which ones have been tampered with! Which is it?
The truth of the matter is, some "massaged" dyno charts have obvious evidence of tampering right on the chart but plenty don't. In many cases, there's no way for a casual observer to tell it's inaccurate. That's only possible if the dyno operator was foolish enough to make the tampering obvious. It's surprising you admit to not knowing this fact!
Last edited:
I'm not opposed to using Google to find evidence to disprove claims I know are inaccurate - it's just an indexed search engine.
I can see why Google is your worst nightmare.
Gone are the days when engines were over engineered for strength. With today's high tech computer simulations engines are optimized to use the least amount of metal to lighten engine to make it cheaper and more fuel efficient. Its far more difficult to hotrod today's engines without over stressing them.
The best testimonial isn't a maker's dyno, but third party run at a quarter mile track. Three runs before, and three runs after a "tune", on the same night. That is the ultimate reality check that can't be denied, assuming you have an impartial third party. A 35hp gain should cut 1/3 second off quarter mile times, or 3 car lengths against a stock CX-5.
Last edited:
35 additional crank HP on a 2.5L CX-5 should reduce 1/4 mile time by 3/4-1 full second.
- :
- 2024 Toyota GHH MAX
2016 Mazda CX-5 GT (Wife)
1990 Miata (Zoom Zoom!)
Google does have an amazing amount of correct data on it....thus the most used and most visited site in the world.
Pretty sure I already showed a 3rd party mazda 6 cutting over half a second of his 1/4 mile run.
True and False. Yes parts are lightened and optimized. That doesn't make them weaker, that actually makes them stronger. Consider the average old dish piston vs the newly optimized D.I. pistons. Or consider the Skyactiv Connecting rod, Material was moved from areas where stress is low and moved to areas where stress is higher. The shape and the design of the connecting rod changed to handle this, and it ultimately made a much stronger connecting rod.
For example. the 1.6L ecoboost. It comes in stock at about 200BHP. Yet it has been shown to handle 500WHP on stock engine. So??
Google isn't my worst nightmare I love google, but it is easy to see when someone is just using google to find information and pretend like it was their own the entire time. Hence why I ask if you (MikeM) have any real world experience with anything and you do not.
How did you conclude that? Surely you must of tested or did you google that one too lmao.
Last edited:
We need that sentiment for the global warming deniers in other forums! ;-)
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Spot on, Tbot.
The 2.5L in the CX5 uses a forged crank, forged rods and forged pistons.
http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/id/2105/pageid/3525/131-compression-and-40-mpg-on-87-octane-fuel-introducing-mazdas-skyactiv-technology.aspx
Older engines like those in the 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's used mostly cheap poorly cast iron parts. A lot of the muscle car vehicles used poorly designed engines and weak components. Oldsmobile for the 455 big block used a CAST iron crank, cast pistons, thin block walls and only 2 bolt mains. This made the engine fail fairly quickly and resulted in spun main bearings, broken cranks and blown head gaskets. In other words, the factory engine was junk.
Modern manufacturing allows for precise castings and weight savings while still retaining strength. Throwing heavy steel randomly onto engine parts is old school and modern engineering allows for weight savings while retaining strength.
Last edited:
