How does Mazda CX5 GT 2016 compare with Nissan Rogue 2016 SL?

[efini]

That's a great start for someone who has their facts wrong (not to mention for someone who only has 12 posts in total).

I guess my knowledge is a sum of my posts to a single web forum. Or I could take your approach, jump into thread after thread while frequently contributing nothing, would you then take my response differently?

The rotary was not banned by name, it was EFFECTIVELY banned by a change to the engine regulations which made it impossible to field a competitive rotary engine.

Right, so...not banned. Writers use "banned" because it has a different connotation than ineligible, it gets attention. In reality it was no different than all of the other engines designs which became ineligible or noncompetitive.

24 hour endurance races are ALWAYS won on a combination of power/reliability.

Didn't claim otherwise...

So I stand by my characterization.

Characterization...that is a good word for your posts. I'll stand by facts instead.

The 1991 race was the first and only time a Japanese manufacturer won. If you don't want to believe me

Again not disputed...,

maybe you'll believe Wolfgang Karl Kopp:

https://www.facebook.com/wkoepp/posts/10204345997959860:0

You're going to reference a marketing post? Seriously? And one that doesn't provide any support at that...

Are you sure?

Yes

Were they competitive?

That is irrelevant. Different teams, different time, and different regulations. Plenty of piston engines are entered which are not competitive too. Drop a great engine into a bad chassis or put a bad team behind a great car, they'll be noncompetitive too.

In any case, I don't see your point (except to unfairly attack me).

Well I can't say I'm surprised... You miss the point on thread after thread, sometimes you're clearly choosing to avoid the points, but you'll still push your thoughts on others regardless of how irrelevant they are. Consider this the result of viewing a summation of your posts. Have at it, I've made my point. This thread was de-railed enough that I didn't feel my corrections would hurt it any further.

 

[MikeM.]

Have at it, I've made my point.

If you made a serious point, it flew right over my head.

 

[ColtX-5]

Don't worry, a turbo-charger does not defeat the purpose of Skyactiv engine technologies. In fact, these technologies are a perfect match for a turbo. The breakthrough with the Skyactiv engines was not the high compression, it's the careful attention to controlling head/piston/valve temperatures that make possible high compression using low octane fuel. And these are precisely the characteristics needed in a forced induction engine to get maximum boost without detonation. It's a natural marriage.

How conducive to a turbo is the same valve timing thay keeps the valves at the correct temps to avoid carbon build up is the question though...

I think you misunderstand the engine design. The SA-G uses valve timing to emulate the Atkinson Cycle. The high static compression ratio allows the expansion ratio (power stroke) to be much larger than the dynamic compression ratio (compression stroke) when the intake valve is held open longer than normal and some of the intake air is pushed back into the intake manifold. Trapping less air on the compression stroke lowers the COMBUSTION temps below what they might have been and that lowers NOx emissions. US NOx levels are stringent, probably accounting for our 13:1 vs Europe's 14:1. The full 13:1 expansion ratio is available in the power stroke, getting the max push from the combustion gasses. This is the reason for the high fuel economy of the SA-G.

Based on the datalogs I have seen from the ND Miata, I believe the SA-G can run on low Octane fuel because it runs little spark advance (also reducing COMBUSTION temps and thus NOx). There is no need for unusual efforts, beyend what's done to any four-stroke engine, to control valve temps in particular, but also head and piston temps.