I was a bit unplesantly surprised by this car's (rather poor) performance. It has just marginally better results than the CX-30 e-Skyactiv G, which has 36 hp and some 30 Nm less. Actually the "problem" is in acceleration from 0 km/h, because in rolling acceleration this Skyactiv X performs quite a bit better. I don't know if it was me (failing to launch better, press some buttons, whatever) or the car itself, but it got worse times from 0 to 60 km/h than the 150 hp Skyactiv G. This car did 0 - 60 km/h in about 4.7 sec, whereas the lower powered version took 4.5 sec. This 4.7 sec time to 60 km/h is a very poor result for a car with over 115hp/T and with AWD.
You have done your job perfectly. There is nothing wrong with your launching technique. The car itself is the source of problem. I have seen several tests of this car in various car magazines and they also mentioned its poor performance. Some even clocked higher than 10.0 s 0-100 km/h! I think Mazda is trying hard to both increase the power and improve fuel consumption simultaneously and they have to limit throttle opening to some extent or delay its opening to get better fuel economy. The only solution is to go for Turbo like other manufacturers did.
I have a Mazda 3 manual Skyactive X 2wd and the power surges very high in the rev range so I think output is much lower throughout the rest of the rev range, therefore headline figures are deceptive, a graph would reveal all! It's a lovely car to drive when you get used to it and fast if you rev it to exploit the high gearing in the 1st 3 gears but it's clearly engineered primarily for economy. It has a crank driven supercharger so doesn't deliver much power at low revs but I do love it! I wish they'd used a bigger battery to give more hybrid electrical assistance at low revs if anything but it's a brilliant car all the same. It's the only compression ignition petrol engine in existence as far as I know and will no doubt be developed further.
As you mentioned its slow for 186hp/240Nm even considering the weight. I have Opel Corsa F 2020 model (now with stage 1 tune 145hp/250Nm) 8AT. The car is FWD and claimed weight is 1233 kg which should be ~117hp/T with the tune. I did some testing yesterday, 11 degree celsius and winter tyres. My 60-100 time was 4.15s, 80-120: 5.31s and 100-150: 9.21s. I am also pretty sure it can go a bit faster in ideal conditions and summer tyres.
@@blackwidow7804 those are pretty respectable numbers. In fact, they are pretty much in line with my stage 1 X3 20d (217hp/460Nm @ 1.800kg). It's not super fast, but it's faster than most cars and you can get away with some nice overtakes 😉
@AcceleratingCars yes and people actually dont expect little Corsa to be that fast. Most models out there are 100hp versions becouse the 130hp is too expensive now but i get mine new back then for 17 200 € which was great value. Now it cost 25k which is not worth the money. Btw great channel and i love that you introduce the 100-150 acceleration becouse thats what most people will do in real life situation.
@@blackwidow7804 thanks, appreciate it! 👍 Yes, indeed, new car prices are going crazy imo. On another note, if you are interested you can check out my Opel Mokka (1.2l 130hp) video on the channel.
@@AcceleratingCars i already saw it and was surprised how slow it is. The 80-120 time is around 1.5s slower than my Corsa and i dont think that -15hp/20Nm and ~60kg more weight makes such a big difference. Mine before tune wasnt that slow for sure but i heard that a lot of the 130hp models on the dyno had only around ~120hp so this Mokka might be one of those.
I was a bit unplesantly surprised by this car's (rather poor) performance. It has just marginally better results than the CX-30 e-Skyactiv G, which has 36 hp and some 30 Nm less. Actually the "problem" is in acceleration from 0 km/h, because in rolling acceleration this Skyactiv X performs quite a bit better. I don't know if it was me (failing to launch better, press some buttons, whatever) or the car itself, but it got worse times from 0 to 60 km/h than the 150 hp Skyactiv G. This car did 0 - 60 km/h in about 4.7 sec, whereas the lower powered version took 4.5 sec. This 4.7 sec time to 60 km/h is a very poor result for a car with over 115hp/T and with AWD.
You have done your job perfectly. There is nothing wrong with your launching technique. The car itself is the source of problem. I have seen several tests of this car in various car magazines and they also mentioned its poor performance. Some even clocked higher than 10.0 s 0-100 km/h!
I think Mazda is trying hard to both increase the power and improve fuel consumption simultaneously and they have to limit throttle opening to some extent or delay its opening to get better fuel economy. The only solution is to go for Turbo like other manufacturers did.
@@Messergebnis-liebhaber thanks for your comment and for the provided information! 👍 alles Gute!
@@dragospahontu Yes, but even Mazda went for it (Mazda 3 Turbo, CX-9, CX-5, etc)
No this engine is just dead below 3000 rpm.
I have a Mazda 3 manual Skyactive X 2wd and the power surges very high in the rev range so I think output is much lower throughout the rest of the rev range, therefore headline figures are deceptive, a graph would reveal all! It's a lovely car to drive when you get used to it and fast if you rev it to exploit the high gearing in the 1st 3 gears but it's clearly engineered primarily for economy. It has a crank driven supercharger so doesn't deliver much power at low revs but I do love it! I wish they'd used a bigger battery to give more hybrid electrical assistance at low revs if anything but it's a brilliant car all the same. It's the only compression ignition petrol engine in existence as far as I know and will no doubt be developed further.
Thanks for your input, man! Nice to see some Mazda owners sharing some insight 😉
As you mentioned its slow for 186hp/240Nm even considering the weight. I have Opel Corsa F 2020 model (now with stage 1 tune 145hp/250Nm) 8AT. The car is FWD and claimed weight is 1233 kg which should be ~117hp/T with the tune. I did some testing yesterday, 11 degree celsius and winter tyres. My 60-100 time was 4.15s, 80-120: 5.31s and 100-150: 9.21s. I am also pretty sure it can go a bit faster in ideal conditions and summer tyres.
@@blackwidow7804 those are pretty respectable numbers. In fact, they are pretty much in line with my stage 1 X3 20d (217hp/460Nm @ 1.800kg). It's not super fast, but it's faster than most cars and you can get away with some nice overtakes 😉
@AcceleratingCars yes and people actually dont expect little Corsa to be that fast. Most models out there are 100hp versions becouse the 130hp is too expensive now but i get mine new back then for 17 200 € which was great value. Now it cost 25k which is not worth the money. Btw great channel and i love that you introduce the 100-150 acceleration becouse thats what most people will do in real life situation.
@@blackwidow7804 thanks, appreciate it! 👍 Yes, indeed, new car prices are going crazy imo. On another note, if you are interested you can check out my Opel Mokka (1.2l 130hp) video on the channel.
@@AcceleratingCars i already saw it and was surprised how slow it is. The 80-120 time is around 1.5s slower than my Corsa and i dont think that -15hp/20Nm and ~60kg more weight makes such a big difference. Mine before tune wasnt that slow for sure but i heard that a lot of the 130hp models on the dyno had only around ~120hp so this Mokka might be one of those.
poti sa faci share la excel? merci!
Da, probabil o sa-l fac public cat de curand
Da, reprizele sunt cam ce trebuie, dar accelerația de pe loc e slabă. Mi se pare ca pornește foarte greu 0-30.
Asa e, dupa 40 incepe sa se miste cat de cat