Rumormill: Mazda targeting 1,760-pound target for next Miata

First BMW, and now Mazda and Honda are converting to the dark side of boost :/
 
Yeah, but pretty soon they have two choices: build turbo charged higly efficient engines or stop mass production of cars. Pretty soon cars sold in EU get rather high penalties if they exceed CO2 targets. It's no problem for Ferrari, if they have to pay couple of thousand euro tax, they can just increase the price of the car, but with cheap cars like the MX-5, or even more with Golf etc, it's not possible, if you want to stay competitive.

By 2015, the industry must reduce CO2 emissions from new cars sold in Europe to a fleet average of 130 grams per kilometer. Last year's average was 140.9g/km, down from 145.9g/km in 2009, according to JATO's analysis of 21 European markets.

???????

If the automakers fall short, they will face steep fines. From 2012 to 2018, the penalties that an auto group faces for being over its target are: 5 euros per vehicle for the first g/km of CO2; 15 euros for the second gram; 25 euros for the third gram; and 95 euros from the fourth gram onwards. A carmaker with sales of 1 million units in Europe that misses the target by 1g/km of CO2 faces a 5 million euro fine.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110328/ANE/110329892/1193#ixzz1RKwv1zUN
Click to expand...

I love high revving "big" (= european big) capacity inline six engines that have made BMW so famous, so I'm really sad to see this development. But give me the choice between 1.4 Turbo ND MX-5 and Nissan Leaf? Yeah... :)
 
MWF said:
Torque>bhp to me
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about?

53afb5d8f8eed605422436b07e7aaa74.png


Eunos_Cosmo said:
First BMW, and now Mazda and Honda are converting to the dark side of boost :/
Click to expand...

Heavens forbid we get efficient engines! Spray that with a can of 'fuck that technological advancement shit right off'.
 
thevictor390 said:
You know as well as I do that different cars have differently shaped power and torque curves.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to under stand the relationship between power and torque. Perhaps looking at it in terms of energy will help you understand.

https://pic.armedcats.net/c/co/cold-fussion/2011/07/06/torque.png

So how can you prefer one over the other? It doesn't make any sense.
 
Cold Fussion, stop being pedantic. We get it already.
 
Cold Fussion said:
You don't seem to under stand the relationship between power and torque. Perhaps looking at it in terms of energy will help you understand.

https://pic.armedcats.net/c/co/cold-fussion/2011/07/06/torque.png

So how can you prefer one over the other? It doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

You can prefer a car with high peak power and low peak torque to one that has the opposite :rolleyes:
 
He has a point. Pefect engine produces lots of torque per liter (way over 100Nm/litre if NA) and totally flat torque curve from idle to revlimit. That means linear power curve, where max power is reached at the rev limiter without any sacrifices in lower rev range.

Just because cams, valves, manifolds and headers won't work efficiently through whole rev range, we get "torque curves". So one engine is designed to produce lots of torque at low to medium revs (easy to drive, low peak HP) other sacrifices low-end torque for better breathing in high revs to produce high peak power (same torque, but at lower revs). Both of these engines can produce excatly the same peak torque, but if other produces the same torque peak 30% higher at the rev range, it makes 30% more power.

Variable valve timing and lift etc try to get around this problem of getting constant amount of air (fuel before direct injection engines) to the combustion chamber, but the systems are not yet perfect.
 
Last edited:
Redliner said:
Cold Fussion, stop being pedantic. We get it already.
Click to expand...

It's not being pedantic, you wouldn't say you prefer to run 50m in 7 seconds over running 100m would you? Because akin to saying you prefer power over torque.

thevictor390 said:
You can prefer a car with high peak power and low peak torque to one that has the opposite :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A car that has a lot of torque down low by definition has a lot of power down low. You can't escape this so it's silly to say you prefer work instead of work per unit time.

Lastsoul said:
He has a point. Pefect engine produces lots of torque per liter (way over 100Nm/litre if NA) and totally flat torque curve from idle to revlimit. That means linear power curve, where max power is reached at the rev limiter without any sacrifices in lower rev range.

Just because cams, valves, manifolds and headers won't work efficiently through whole rev range, we get "torque curves". So one engine is designed to produce lots of torque at low to medium revs (easy to drive, low peak HP) other sacrifices low-end torque for better breathing in high revs to produce high peak power (same torque, but at lower revs). Both of these engines can produce excatly the same peak torque, but if other produces the same torque peak 30% higher at the rev range, it makes 30% more power.

Variable valve timing and lift etc try to get around this problem of getting constant amount of air (fuel before direct injection engines) to the combustion chamber, but the systems are not yet perfect.
Click to expand...

The other ideal situation would be to have a constant power curve, because it would mean you nonlonger need a gearbox.
 
Cold Fussion said:
A car that has a lot of torque down low by definition has a lot of power down low. You can't escape this so it's silly to say you prefer work instead of work per unit time.
Click to expand...

Still not what I am saying. There are many examples of cars with high peak torque compared to peak power and vice-versa. My own car has low peak torque compared to other cars that make similar peak power. And it makes a difference in the way it drives.

Where said torque and power come in the rev range is another discussion entirely.
 
Last edited:
Yes but MWF's original statement was he preferred torque over power which doesn't make any sense. Obviously every car has a different power curve, and the two ideal situations are for power to increase linearly with rpm or for power to be constant. If you have the power curve you don't need the torque and vice versa. This is why power and torque figures are almost completely, they as well just have a thumbs up or thumbs down next to the engine in the specifications. I think it should be mandated the manufactures have to advertise the curve and not just a marketing figure.
 
thevictor390 said:
My own car has low peak torque compared to other cars that make similar peak power.
Click to expand...

Which means your car has less low-end power due to less low-end torque while the other has more low-end power due to more low-end torque.

Here's an example, their peak power is pretty much the same and they rev pretty much as high:

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2011/07/06/C_motor.jpg https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2011/07/06/F_motor.jpg

The left naturally aspirated engine has low low-end torque, as a result power at 1500rpm is about 17kW.
The right turbocharged engine has (relatively) high low-end torque, as a result power at 1500rpm is about 24kW.
That's 41% more low-end torque and 41% more low-end power.

Going further up, the turbocharged engine gets close to peak power much lower down. Why? Torque. They're very closely related, linearly in fact.


Cold Fussion said:
I think it should be mandated the manufactures have to advertise the curve and not just a marketing figure.
Click to expand...

Buy a Skoda. Their configurator shows the power and torque curve when you select an engine.
https://carconfig.skoda-auto.de/Pages/Model.aspx
 
Last edited:
My mother's Porsche Boxter has all the curves in the owner's manual, though they are in metric units (yeah, yeah, like it or not that's not the standard over here).
 
Eunos_Cosmo said:
First BMW, and now Mazda and Honda are converting to the dark side of boost :/
Click to expand...

Mazda has been using boost on and off for the better part of 3 decades. RX-7's in Japan went turbo and were no longer sold n/a. There was the 626/mx-6 turbos, the 323 gt/gtx/gtr all turbo. Then of course the mazdaspeed cars of recent history.
 
Redliner said:
Cold Fussion, stop being pedantic. We get it already.
Click to expand...

Don't worry someone will catch him out on something and he will slink away from the discussion.
 
LeVeL said:
Cold Fussion is now the most annoying man on the forum. Congratulations, you might as well change your name to Spectre Jr.
Click to expand...

Nah, Spectre is amusing at times. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top