-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Mazda announces breakthrough in long-coveted engine technology
- Thread starter TangoAlphaLima
- Start date
AlmostMilk
Member
So that's why Toyota wanted to buy a stake in their company.
dr.rocktopus
Banned
This thread title immediately had me thinking rotary :'(
1. ICE is still going to be around for a long time. America barely has the infrastructure for charging the EVs we have now, never mind future sales volumes. EV is definitely the future, but the future is not here yet for everyone in an equivalent usage case to ICE vehicles. There's still charging times and range to worry about - both which could be alleviated with improved tech and infrastructure. But your life has to fit an EV lifestyle right now. It will be mass market when an EV fits your life.
2. Mazda is obscenely tiny and has limited engineering resources. The part ownership of Toyota is nothing compared to the Ford partnership back in the day. Simply put other people are already working on hybrids/EVs and technology has been licensed before (Toyota licensed Prius tech in 00's IIRC). Mazda is already invested in high compression motors - see the current slate of Skyactiv engines. It makes sense to continue down that path since there are already proven benefits. Any benefit now using Mazda's forte is still a benefit, but going forward towards an EV future yes those benefits will be diminishing.
1. ICE is still going to be around for a long time. America barely has the infrastructure for charging the EVs we have now, never mind future sales volumes. EV is definitely the future, but the future is not here yet for everyone in an equivalent usage case to ICE vehicles. There's still charging times and range to worry about - both which could be alleviated with improved tech and infrastructure. But your life has to fit an EV lifestyle right now. It will be mass market when an EV fits your life.
2. Mazda is obscenely tiny and has limited engineering resources. The part ownership of Toyota is nothing compared to the Ford partnership back in the day. Simply put other people are already working on hybrids/EVs and technology has been licensed before (Toyota licensed Prius tech in 00's IIRC). Mazda is already invested in high compression motors - see the current slate of Skyactiv engines. It makes sense to continue down that path since there are already proven benefits. Any benefit now using Mazda's forte is still a benefit, but going forward towards an EV future yes those benefits will be diminishing.
TheCochese
Banned
Some people here pulling EV numbers out of their ass.
I have relatives in the suburbs of Atlanta I visit often. Driving 2 miles to the store I'll see like a dozen Nissan Leafs (Leaves?). It seems like when the tax breaks were good everyone bought one as a commuter car. Even in their very small subdivision I've seen 3 parked in driveways with a charging cable coming out of the garage. You can buy a nice house with a garage starting at $250k there, people generally need multiple cars, and it's great for commuting even if it's not for road trips.
Meanwhile in the cities I've lived in in the last few years I see quite a few Teslas and lots of BMW i5s but very few Leafs because if you can afford those cars chances are you have a garage to charge it in, or at least work at the kind of company where you can charge it there during the day. The people who buy cars priced like the leaf, especially after tax incentives, are less likely to have a way to charge it. They unfortunately don't make as much sense here yet.
If the new version of the ICE car has 30% less emissions, and we assume that an electric car has no emissions (which is fair since we aren't taking into consideration the emissions required to produce the gasoline and get it to the pump either), these improved ICE cars only have to outsell electric cars 3.33:1 to match the emissions savings, in comparison to existing ICE cars.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
It has best ratio of engine size/volume to power output of any ICE engines, I believe. Rotary engines can be very small and lightweight and produce lots of power. Problem with them is the delicacy of the mechanics. The complex rotary motion creates more wear and tear, and requires more lubrication to work long term.
It's so weird when I hear people arguing different points or thoughts on ICE cars. In what way would excluding the other elements that go into an ICE car be ok?
Let's break it down very cleanly:
EV's
Emission from generating electricity through either Coal, Natural Gas, Hydro, Renewables.
Emissions when building the car
No emissions from driving EV
ICE
Emission from building the car
Emissions from extracting oil out of the ground
Emission from transporting oil from extraction point to refining plant
Emission from refining oil
Emission from transport refined oil(gasoline) to gas stations across world
Emissions from car being driven
One additional fact: the energy required just to refine the amount of gasoline needed to propel an internal combustion vehicle 100 miles is pretty close to the amount of energy required to propel an EV 100 miles.......so just the process of refining the oil is the equivalent of all of the emission from an EV.
kaname-san
Member
I thought this was rotary related.
RX-9 plz
"Mazda announces a new rotary that's 50% more efficient! They went from 10 to 15 mpg!"
I don't see them ever making another rotary.
I was excluding them because I didn't know them, so had no way of including them in the math. I admit my 3.33:1 ratio was a rough estimate. What do you think is more accurate, and how long do you think it will take for sales to reach that ratio? Last year it was something like 116:1 worldwide, I believe.
Granted, we still can't compare until we know how quickly the rollout of this new tech goes, either.
dr.rocktopus
Banned
They are fun to drive if you like high horsepower and high rpms. The 1.3L in the RX-8 makes around 250hp and will safely rev to 9000rpm. A comparable sized 1.3L piston engine in a Toyota Yaris makes 84hp.
But they have terrible fuel consumption (that same RX-8 engine consumes fuel like a V8 in a truck) and poor emissions. On top of that, in order to keep them alive you essentially have to intentionally burn oil (as oil is injected to keep the (apex) seals in the engine lubricated, unlike piston engines where that lubricating oil can be recycled).
Good on Mazda. Their Skyactiv engines are already very efficient in terms of real world MPG and they (Mazda) are making good looking and good driving cars these days. I wish them much success and will be strongly looking at the 3 and the 6 as well as the CX-5 when my wife is ready to replace her 06 Altima in a year or two.
wild_fire987
Member
I live in a pretty rural part of America... I've seen MAYBE a hundred all electric cars in the past year on the road. I don't doubt that we'll eventually be all electric, but I still think it's at least a decade out for this area (probably closer to 20-30 years).
I think this is a good thing in the meantime, because the electric car infrastructure out here is almost non-existent.
I currently drive a Skyactiv Mazda 3 hatchback and am averaging 35 mpg. I love my car and if this technology is better than Skyactiv then I will no doubt be getting another Mazda in 5-10 years when I have to replace my current one.
I think this is a good thing in the meantime, because the electric car infrastructure out here is almost non-existent.
I currently drive a Skyactiv Mazda 3 hatchback and am averaging 35 mpg. I love my car and if this technology is better than Skyactiv then I will no doubt be getting another Mazda in 5-10 years when I have to replace my current one.
In the 70s, Mazda had the bright idea to put them in a pickup truck. I wonder how that was to use. Rotary engines aren't known for their torque.
rokkerkory
Member
I love mazda <3
4 million is less than 5% of total sales. If 95% of the market produces 30% less emissions, that's better than 5% of the market producing 0 emissions.
Eh man it hard to peg down even rough numbers because there's just so much going on at once in terms of where the electricity is generated. The drop in coal usage has been so big and much more drastic than was anticipated.....even 3 years ago.
Sorry if I went on a rant there. I guess the point I was trying to make is the 30% reduction is good, in no way is it a negative on Mazda. But the 30% reduction gets negated very quickly as renewable energy is replacing the energy provider for EV's when you take into account the emission of the car and the emissions needed to move that car on a daily basis. In 5-10 years, it's very conceivable that renewable energy will make up 50% or more of the electricity generated around the world(with the other being some remaining nuclear, natural gas, and hydro).
Actually, even at 5%, it still would better for emissions. If you look at my post earlier, I break down all of the emissions associated with ICE cars which is how it should be viewed.
MikeOfAllTrades
Member
They literally spit fire
due to being so inefficient that gas gets ejected out the exhaust before the engine can use all of its thermal energy.
Moral Panic
Member
Does the coal just magick itself from the ground into electricity?
ChronotriggerJM
Member
How many cars will this engine go into is my question. Will it just be Ford, Mazda and Toyota? On only a fraction of their line up?
I mean good on them of course, this engine paired with some hybrid tweaks would be awesome. But if it doesn't end up in any cars it doesn't help much lol.
I mean good on them of course, this engine paired with some hybrid tweaks would be awesome. But if it doesn't end up in any cars it doesn't help much lol.
The difference created by processes unique to ICE based cars isn't close enough to overcome it. 30% taken from almost the entire market is enormous.
Man, comments like this. Feel free to look up the energy creation efficiencies of a coal power plant and how it compares to extracting, moving, and refining oil. Please do.
It would be great if we could fast forward this conversation 5 years when coal power generation is under 15%. Just in my area which is a major city, we only get 30% of our power from coal. That has dropped from 60% just 4 years ago. Pretty easy to do the math to see where this is headed.
dr.rocktopus
Banned
I forgot about that. I drive a Honda so torque is a forgotten concept unfortunately.
I think progress now is still worth exploring. Every little bit helps. Some car companies spent the extra money on active air opening flaps because they improved fuel efficiency by 1% (current gen Focus). It all adds up, so a 30% improvement is nothing to sneeze at.
HellforLeather
Member
The skyactive engines are across their entire line. If the engine works the way they claim it does, unless there is some aspect of it that is undesirable for certain applications, I think they would have this in every car they make.
I'd love for you to look into this yourself because yes it is. The difference only get's bigger as more electricity is generated from renewables to replace coal and eventually natural gas
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Is Mazda a big percentage of cars sold?
Only a couple percent of the market. The big ones are GM, Toyota and VW.
HellforLeather
Member
Im curious to see a torque curve for these engines. The Skyactiv got complete technical breakdowns (you can find them on Youtube) so hopefully these get the same treatment.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see how it is even possible to see this development in a bad light. Let's say you're right, and 5% of electric vehicles sold will be a *better* accomplishment than this 30% gas saving provides in terms of emissions and pollution. Even still, having this 30% saving in ICE engines is better than not having it at all, which would be the case if this engine has not being invented, and everyone keeps using old type ICE for the remaining 95% of the cars sold. So what's the negative here exactly?
What about emissions from EV battery production? Making chargers? Emissions from oil to produce all sorts of petroleum based products still in EVs like tires, gaskets, seals, seats, plastics etc...? Emissions from creating new electric infrastructure? I understand what you are getting at, but I think your breakdown is overly simplified and misleading. It isn't that simple.
Transportation accounts for 14% of greenhouse emissions worldwide (in the US passenger cars are roughly 60% of this number but it's easier if we ignore this as this proportion applies to EVs equally). Reducing 95% of cars emissions by 30% is taking about 4% off total emissions. Having 5% of cars be EVs takes off less than 1%. Even if we say output from all industrial sources (21% globally) is also reduced by 5% (an extremely generous allowance) by those EVs that's still less than 2% total compared to 4%. I can even reduce electricity generation (25% globally) by 5% to get 3.25% total for EVs and ICE still comes out ahead.
n0razi
Member
It is insanely efficient from a size/weight standpoint... a tiny 1.3 liter rotary engine can make as much power as regular inline-4/V6 thats 3 times larger and heavier. They make sense in a race car where you want to minimize weight and maximize power but not that great for daily driving as they chug gas and oil.
I simply was responding to someone's post earlier in the thread in order to provide more information into why their way of thinking was incorrect. No where have I stated that Mazda's new engine is a net negative.
I already took into account the emission needed to build the car. We can break down the car but ICE cars will lose in that venture too because there's less material in a EV car than an ICE. Emissions from oil to produce other products wasn't listed because it goes into both cars...as I said, the emission needed to build both cars.
It's not overly simplistic and actually the more detailed you get about the breakdown, the more apparent it is that ICE cars are incredibly inefficient.
Shake Appeal
Member
So, "emission from building the car," which is listed above.
EVs aren't a silver bullet, but they are a distinct improvement. And self-driving ride-sharing EVs are better again.
poppedcollar69
Member
he said emissions when building the car. that includes those.
Why are you changing the comparison to include all emission from everything in the world? I'm under no illusion that if all cars suddenly turned into EV's, that the emissions issue would be solved....or even close to solved. I'm comparing the total costs of emissions from ICE vehicles to EV's
So am I? I don't understand your comment.
That's my bad. On the go and misread the whole quote from my phone. So my numbers and calculations come out much different because we don't agree on a net emission for an ICE car and a EV. I include everything related to building a ICE, driving the ICE car, and how the fuel is made and transported for said ICE car. I do the same for EV's.
I did the same here and I was overly generous. The problem is EVs are such a small portion of sales and will be for a while. Big differences in efficiency for use and production of EVs are blunted by the overwhelming majority that ICE has.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Are other companies on the cusp of this engine technology as well? I'm just not sure why everyone is saying all ICE vehicles moving forward will have this. It seems to me like barely any will, primarily Mazdas. Do we know if Ford and Toyota will be making these there primary engines?
You are ignoring emissions on the EV side that you counted on the ICE side.
ICE on the left of the = EV on the right
Emissions from extracting oil out of the ground = Emissions from extracting natural gas and coal out of the ground
Emission from transporting oil from extraction point to refining plant = Emissions from transporting natural gas to gas plant, gas plants are located closer to the wells than refineries and there are a lot more of them, but they do exist and they do emit
Emission from refining oil = Emissions from processing gas
Emission from transport refined oil(gasoline) to gas stations across world = Loss of energy due to powerline transmission to charging station, which will increase emissions from the power plant to make up the difference.
Emissions from car being driven = Emissions from power plant, the energy chain it is out of order between the two paths. Alternatively you could say there are no emissions from the car being driven on the EV side, but on the other hand there is no emissions equivalent on the ICE side for the power plant on the EV side
Lost in this discussion is that the efficiency of different processes is not the same. For example, driving an EV in California might end up being worse for the environment than an ICE. Why, because California buys a lot of power from out of state, so transmission losses are very high and they generally are buying the power from places like Texas that have high coal utilization in their power plants. So the source of the power is much dirtier than burning gasoline, and the efficiency gain from burning the fossil fuel in a plant which is very efficient vs. your car which is relatively inefficient is partially negated by the transmission losses.
In general, whether an EV actually helps the environment will depend upon what your local power mix is and how far away the power plants are. An EV near a lot of hydro power will be almost a truly emissionless vehicle if you ignore manufacturing emissions.
Yeah its' pretty apparent that we are using different numbers and also have different views on market penetration of EV's. Did a lot of research when I was investing some money into the renewable energy industry and EV so I'm pretty sound in my belief of market penetration but I get that other people don't view it the same.
My numbers on emissions are from the EPA and IPCC. The 4 million EV number I used came from you.