• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mazda announces breakthrough in long-coveted engine technology

NAC4EV

NAC4EV

Golden Member
RTS1ATIQ.jpeg

Mazda has cracked the code on a compression-ignition engine, called Skyactiv-X (which utilizes SCCI, or Spark Controlled Compression Ignition). That's a neat engineering accomplishment, sure, but why is the tiny company investing big dollars in fancy tech that's frustrated the much larger companies who've investigated it? In this case, Mazda is peering into a crystal ball to consider how best to flow with a few troubling tides. One is the premature handwringing about the death of the internal combustion engine, another is Europe's swing away from diesel engines.

Skyactiv-X seems, at this juncture, a hedge bet against both aspects. EV infrastructure lags massively behind our petroleum infrastructure — no shock there. Mazda claims the tech will net 20-30 percent gains in fuel efficiency over its current gasoline engines and about matching its diesel engine. And that's without any on board hybrid tech, so that staves off the inevitable necessity to fully adopt electrification for a while — this is assuming that, at some point, it won't be practical to sell a non-hybrid or non-EV. At what date that happens is open to debate, but as I said above, technology like this kicks that decision point down the road a bit. Mazda is here translating research dollars into time, allowing its engine factories a few more years of probably profitable production of internal-combustion engines before retooling, and before somebody needs to pour a massive amount of money into a broad EV charging infrastructure to replace gas stations. None of this is happening fast enough for a wholesale transition to EVs anytime soon. So, that's one bet hedged.

The next is Europe's declining interest in diesel engines for mainly health reasons. Just about a week ago, The New York Times posted an excellent primer on this issue, which is somewhat controversial in Europe. Germany's auto industry, a huge portion of its economy, is heavily invested in diesel tech and seriously opposed to proposals in Britain and France to eliminate the technology, which creates unhealthy diesel particulate emissions. The German industry is hoping Band-Aids like pollution-reducing measures will help them, but after a massive and widespread emission cheating scandal, its credibility is at a nadir. It seems like consumers have sensed which way the wind is blowing, and it has hurt sales. The NYT reports that diesel sales in Germany alone — remember, bastion and originator of diesel technology — are down 13 percent.
 
This is like the company that designed the best, most efficient steam engine that nobody could design for years... right at the same time desiel electric locomotives became prevalent. Fact is: any sort of hydrocarbon-burning engine pollutes an order of magnitude more than an EV. You're living in the past with Mazda and their rotary engines. Nobody cares about your dinosaur fuel, we'll all be driving teslas and flying in space-xs in the future grandpa.
 
More options don't hurt. If gas engines get suddenly better, then EVs will have even more incentive to get better. Granted there are good reasons to get off fossil fuels completely.
 
The writing is on the wall for internal combustion motivated conveyances and I personally want to see it go the way of the steam engine. It's like the telegraph operators when the telephone was introduced or the oil lamp fillers when electric lighting was introduced. It was good while it lasted but alas its time for something better. If I did a lot of towing I most certainly would want an electric truck with full torque at zero rpm's to help move it around.
 
Stokely said:
Granted there are good reasons to get off fossil fuels completely.
Click to expand...

And every dollar spent on prolonging the reliance on fossil fuels is ultimately wasted. If the industry got serious about alternative fuel vehicles in the 70s after the oil crisis we would have had good electrics or a hydrogen infrastructure ages ago. But as soon as gas got cheap again we abandoned that and went running right back to oil as the path of least resistance. And now it's happening again. When gas was near $5 a gallon people were a lot more serious about getting away from fossil fuels. Now that it's half that there's more interest in prolonging the life of gasoline vehicles.
 
NAC4EV said:
RTS1ATIQ.jpeg

Mazda has cracked the code on a compression-ignition engine, called Skyactiv-X (which utilizes SCCI, or Spark Controlled Compression Ignition). That's a neat engineering accomplishment, sure, but why is the tiny company investing big dollars in fancy tech that's frustrated the much larger companies who've investigated it? In this case, Mazda is peering into a crystal ball to consider how best to flow with a few troubling tides. One is the premature handwringing about the death of the internal combustion engine, another is Europe's swing away from diesel engines.

Skyactiv-X seems, at this juncture, a hedge bet against both aspects. EV infrastructure lags massively behind our petroleum infrastructure — no shock there. Mazda claims the tech will net 20-30 percent gains in fuel efficiency over its current gasoline engines and about matching its diesel engine. And that's without any on board hybrid tech, so that staves off the inevitable necessity to fully adopt electrification for a while — this is assuming that, at some point, it won't be practical to sell a non-hybrid or non-EV. At what date that happens is open to debate, but as I said above, technology like this kicks that decision point down the road a bit. Mazda is here translating research dollars into time, allowing its engine factories a few more years of probably profitable production of internal-combustion engines before retooling, and before somebody needs to pour a massive amount of money into a broad EV charging infrastructure to replace gas stations. None of this is happening fast enough for a wholesale transition to EVs anytime soon. So, that's one bet hedged.

The next is Europe's declining interest in diesel engines for mainly health reasons. Just about a week ago, The New York Times posted an excellent primer on this issue, which is somewhat controversial in Europe. Germany's auto industry, a huge portion of its economy, is heavily invested in diesel tech and seriously opposed to proposals in Britain and France to eliminate the technology, which creates unhealthy diesel particulate emissions. The German industry is hoping Band-Aids like pollution-reducing measures will help them, but after a massive and widespread emission cheating scandal, its credibility is at a nadir. It seems like consumers have sensed which way the wind is blowing, and it has hurt sales. The NYT reports that diesel sales in Germany alone — remember, bastion and originator of diesel technology — are down 13 percent.
Click to expand...

Wait a second. They're using ActiveX for a new engine? Don't they know how insecure and stupid it is?

But seriously, I wonder how long before Microsoft gets pissed at the name. Doubly so because they got sued for using the name Sky in Skydrive. One would think Mazda likes poking Microsoft in the eye.
 
I would imagine that the spark plugs would have to be cycled on a regular basis to keep them clean. If Mazda had truly created an engine that runs like a diesel they wouldn't have to come on after the initial start but this technology requires them to step in when this process fails to keep the engine running. Couldn't you imagine this technology combined with start/stop tech? I could see it now, sitting a long traffic light with the engine shutdown only to remain sitting there once the light turns green because the engine cannot restart. I really hope that EV pricing will converge with normal cars soon so they can be afforded by normal people.
 
I realize that the future is not ICE, but it is still going to take time before EV's become a significant volume. In the meantime, more efficient ICE's are what is needed and Mazda is delivering. This as a component of a hybrid powertrain will be very compelling. Likely why Toyota has been cozying up with Mazda.

You really have to give it to Mazda. Since breaking off from Ford, they have really done a lot with a little.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
And every dollar spent on prolonging the reliance on fossil fuels is ultimately wasted. If the industry got serious about alternative fuel vehicles in the 70s after the oil crisis we would have had good electrics or a hydrogen infrastructure ages ago. But as soon as gas got cheap again we abandoned that and went running right back to oil as the path of least resistance. And now it's happening again. When gas was near $5 a gallon people were a lot more serious about getting away from fossil fuels. Now that it's half that there's more interest in prolonging the life of gasoline vehicles.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a conspiracy theory brewing, then again most people often do stupid things ~ short term gain, long term pain!
 
Aaaaaand then there's me and a pile of other drag racing motorheads whose first thought upon purviewing the article was if this tech could somehow improve my 1/4 mile ET's or fry the tires off my car in a much more spectacularly violent fashion.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
And every dollar spent on prolonging the reliance on fossil fuels is ultimately wasted. If the industry got serious about alternative fuel vehicles in the 70s after the oil crisis we would have had good electrics or a hydrogen infrastructure ages ago. But as soon as gas got cheap again we abandoned that and went running right back to oil as the path of least resistance. And now it's happening again. When gas was near $5 a gallon people were a lot more serious about getting away from fossil fuels. Now that it's half that there's more interest in prolonging the life of gasoline vehicles.
Click to expand...


The problem is not as simple as that. When it comes to energy storage petroleum is unrivaled. It is energy dense and therefore can move big things fast with minimum "charge time". These are not inconsequential advantages. What should have been done in the 70's is irrelevant as while I agree completely with what should have been done, we're here now.

There's something that people seem to be missing and that hydrocarbon fuels are not inherently bad at all and remain superior to anything on the horizon.

How can that be? Greenhouse gases! OK, but really not important. What matters is how fuel is obtained. Presently we are taking sequestered carbon and turning it into CO2, but there are potential alternatives which I believe should be explored as much as the other alternatives. We have the capability to make petroleum substitutes with microbes. Designing an organism which uses photosynthesis on a massive scale to produce alternatives would result in a carbon neutral source with CO2 sequestered from the environment and powered by the sun.

Naturally this has it's own challenges but I think we need to get beyond a one size fits all solution. When we were relatively primitive technology we had limited options, but that is an unnecessary restraint. Ideally we would have good solutions along both lines with dual electric/fuel designs much improved over today's hybrids. If this was the default design for passenger vehicles then we could require electricity in areas of high pollution or high population density and when on the open road a switch could be made to carbon neutral power.

Why not turn the paradigm around. Instead of being bound to one solution which doesn't work in different scenarios use more than one to better fit our needs. There's no reason it can't be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top