Topic: Mazda Hasn't Forgotten About Diesel Mazda6, Still In Product Roadmap

[Solstice2006]

The diesel will get better mileage on the highway, but around town it's going to be a wash at best.

This.  I find that the advancement of ICEs has made the diesels in current form somewhat moot unless the only driving you do is pure highway.

I'd like to see more R&D on diesels to make them the efficient powerplant that they can/should be.  There's simply been more focus on petrol for some reason.

Even Mazda's incredible 2.2D is only going to have 'some' benefits that will not likely outweigh its costs.  To sell both the 2.5G and the 2.2D side-by-side is to leech sales.  If the Mazda6 was purely sold as a 2.2D (no sky-G available), it would be a niche product that would have some real sales if sold at the same pricing as it current is at.  The problem is, for a $2-3k premium over the gas version, and similar performance, and only the possibility of 'some' fuel savings, the diesel doesn't make a ton of sense.

It could, if done right (as mentioned above), but then there's some people who say, "eww, diesel" and wouldn't even shop for one.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The Fusion S is significantly cheaper than the Mazda 6 GX. I just went to Ford.ca and built a SE with technology and appearance pkgs for $1800 less than the GX. The Fusion is also better equipped at that price...

...and there you have it, folks, why the Fusion sells more than the Mazda6.

There are various reasons why the Fusion sells more than the Mazda6. 

Many more dealers. Some people won't buy a car, unless the dealership is within 25km.
More engine choices
AWD availability
Some like to have the more interior room feel
Some like styling more than the Mazda6
And many people who work for Ford, plant, dealerships, take advantage of the savings. A neighbour few doors down has a Fusion SE.  Doesn't like the 1.6T as much as my 2.5 he says. Not as good on gas.  But he works at the Oakville plant, and it worked out around $3000 cheaper than my car.     
Fleet vehicles as well...

Having a plant in your province surely affects sales in that province.  Many people buy it because its made local.  I have no problem with that.  Just an observation. 

[mixmanmash]

the issue is that no engine using regular gas will come close to the performance of this diesel either in power/torque or mileage.  you need to buy a small displacement turbo petrol, all of which use premium fuel adding 20-30 cents more than regular.  with small displacement turbos, we all know mileage won't come anywhere close to this engine.

this 2.2l shines, not necessarily in the 0-100 sprint, but from the stop light 0-60. that initial push is immediate and very strong.  it's where most people would really appreciate the power. it has a really nice power band from 1000-4500. 310lb/ft of torque.

Wut? The Mazda6 diesel does 0-100kph in about 8.4 seconds. The gas version does it in roughly 7.8 seconds with the manual, add 3 or 4 tenths for the slushbox. The diesel will get better mileage on the highway, but around town it's going to be a wash at best.

drive them both.  the diesel around town feels like a v6.  that's where most people feel the difference.  read what i said.

People have always told me this, I don't get it.

Horsepower is the rate of application of torque. Diesels typically have more torque, but much less hp, so they can't apply their torque as fast, so to me they feel sluggish. I don't care if a gas engine has to rev a bit higher. They're well designed for it.

A theoretical V6 Mazda6 would likely be in the low 6s to 100kph, so no, an 8.5 second diesel wouldn't feel the same at all.

You have gotten this completely wrong. Diesels have more torque and it peaks earlier, just for a shorter power band. That is, it's hp max's out earlier than a petrol engine - let's say around 4500rpm.  So if you use each gear beyond that you will feel the restriction, otherwise it's hp you never use in a petrol engine.

This.  And actually torque is measured on a dyno and HP is calculated based on the measured torque.

Given that torque is higher at lower RPMs on a diesel, that means the diesel makes more HP at lower RPMs than a gas engine.  Hence the surge of oomph on your initial moving.  I find the cool thing with my dad's E320 CDI is how effortless it moves off the line, or if you are on the highway, how it has so much torque at the low RPM in top gear that it can accelerate fairly rapidly without downshifting.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

the issue is that no engine using regular gas will come close to the performance of this diesel either in power/torque or mileage.  you need to buy a small displacement turbo petrol, all of which use premium fuel adding 20-30 cents more than regular.  with small displacement turbos, we all know mileage won't come anywhere close to this engine.

this 2.2l shines, not necessarily in the 0-100 sprint, but from the stop light 0-60. that initial push is immediate and very strong.  it's where most people would really appreciate the power. it has a really nice power band from 1000-4500. 310lb/ft of torque.

Wut? The Mazda6 diesel does 0-100kph in about 8.4 seconds. The gas version does it in roughly 7.8 seconds with the manual, add 3 or 4 tenths for the slushbox. The diesel will get better mileage on the highway, but around town it's going to be a wash at best.

drive them both.  the diesel around town feels like a v6.  that's where most people feel the difference.  read what i said.

People have always told me this, I don't get it.

Horsepower is the rate of application of torque. Diesels typically have more torque, but much less hp, so they can't apply their torque as fast, so to me they feel sluggish. I don't care if a gas engine has to rev a bit higher. They're well designed for it.

A theoretical V6 Mazda6 would likely be in the low 6s to 100kph, so no, an 8.5 second diesel wouldn't feel the same at all.

You have gotten this completely wrong. Diesels have more torque and it peaks earlier, just for a shorter power band. That is, it's hp max's out earlier than a petrol engine - let's say around 4500rpm.  So if you use each gear beyond that you will feel the restriction, otherwise it's hp you never use in a petrol engine.

This.  And actually torque is measured on a dyno and HP is calculated based on the measured torque.

Given that torque is higher at lower RPMs on a diesel, that means the diesel makes more HP at lower RPMs than a gas engine.  Hence the surge of oomph on your initial moving.  I find the cool thing with my dad's E320 CDI is how effortless it moves off the line, or if you are on the highway, how it has so much torque at the low RPM in top gear that it can accelerate fairly rapidly without downshifting.

Simple test: take two engines with roughly the same capacity, one diesel, one gasoline. Rev the diesel under load from 1500 to 3000rpm. Do the same with a gasoline engine. The gas engine will be quicker.

It's why the naturally aspirated Mazda6 is a fair bit quicker (7.8sec to 100kph) than the turbocharged and intercooled diesel with higher output (8.4sec).

[mixmanmash]

wow.  dude, you couldn't be more wrong.  a petrol engine is quicker to 100 because it has a higher redline.  it can use each gear longer and achieve higher hp through higher rpms, i.e.  a longer power band makes for a more flexible. the more rpm = the more work done (and torque). Naturally aspirated engine need higher rpms to build torque.  this is where a petrol engine's max hp comes from as well, at high rpms.  a diesel gets it's torque from the much higher compression ratio. each stroke of the piston has more strength or torque at low rpms.  diesel fuel can be put under very high pressure as it won't detonate. this is where stroke length, piston speed, displacement etc come into play.

mazda has been tricky, as they designed a diesel to work at relatively low compression which has allowed them to create a longer power band.  it almost acts like a petrol engine quite frankly.

This. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

wow.  dude, you couldn't be more wrong.  a petrol engine is quicker to 100 because it has a higher redline.  it can use each gear longer and achieve higher hp through higher rpms, i.e.  a longer power band makes for a more flexible. the more rpm = the more work done (and torque). Naturally aspirated engine need higher rpms to build torque.  this is where a petrol engine's max hp comes from as well, at high rpms.  a diesel gets it's torque from the much higher compression ratio. each stroke of the piston has more strength or torque at low rpms.  diesel fuel can be put under very high pressure as it won't detonate. this is where stroke length, piston speed, displacement etc come into play.

mazda has been tricky, as they designed a diesel to work at relatively low compression which has allowed them to create a longer power band.  it almost acts like a petrol engine quite frankly.

And yet the engine with much, much higher torque is slower. It's almost as if the faster rate of application of lower torque makes some kind of difference. 

Take it back to fundamentals 1 hp=33,000 ft-lb/min or 550ft-lb/sec for linear systems. It's the rate of application of force.

For rotating equipment it's

HP= (torque x speed)/5252 where torque is in ft-lbs. The units for the constant simplify to torque per minute.

Dad had a 400in³ Pontiac back in the 1970s, 170hp and 325 ft-lb of torque (2000rpm torque peak). It was a dog at accelerating, but had no issues maintaining speed up steep hills and so on. It had a relatively short stroke and a relatively high rev limit.

Some of what you guys are attributing to diesel engines comes as much from forced induction as it does from the long stroke characteristics of diesels. Ford's Ecoboost engines make lots of low end torque as well as high peak horsepower. The 3.5L in the F150 puts out 365hp @ 5000rpm and 420ft-lb @ 2500rpm. Compare that with the Ram Ecodiesel that makes 240 hp at 3600 rpm and 420 lb-ft at just 2000 rpm. The F150 is quicker to 60mph by about two seconds even though it is down two gears compared to the Ram.

 

[mixmanmash]

2006 Mercedes Benz E320CDI:
201 HP @4200 RPM
369lb-ft @1800 RPM
0-60 mph 6.6 seconds

2006 E350:
268HP @ 6000RPM
258lb-ft @ 2400RPM
0-60 mph 6.7 seconds

That was from the 2006 MB brochure...

The diesel was also down 2 gears compared to the gas engine.

[Noto]

wow.  dude, you couldn't be more wrong.  a petrol engine is quicker to 100 because it has a higher redline.  it can use each gear longer and achieve higher hp through higher rpms, i.e.  a longer power band makes for a more flexible. the more rpm = the more work done (and torque). Naturally aspirated engine need higher rpms to build torque.  this is where a petrol engine's max hp comes from as well, at high rpms.  a diesel gets it's torque from the much higher compression ratio. each stroke of the piston has more strength or torque at low rpms.  diesel fuel can be put under very high pressure as it won't detonate. this is where stroke length, piston speed, displacement etc come into play.

mazda has been tricky, as they designed a diesel to work at relatively low compression which has allowed them to create a longer power band.  it almost acts like a petrol engine quite frankly.

And yet the engine with much, much higher torque is slower. It's almost as if the faster rate of application of lower torque makes some kind of difference. 

Take it back to fundamentals 1 hp=33,000 ft-lb/min or 550ft-lb/sec for linear systems. It's the rate of application of force.

For rotating equipment it's

HP= (torque x speed)/5252 where torque is in ft-lbs. The units for the constant simplify to torque per minute.

Dad had a 400in³ Pontiac back in the 1970s, 170hp and 325 ft-lb of torque (2000rpm torque peak). It was a dog at accelerating, but had no issues maintaining speed up steep hills and so on. It had a relatively short stroke and a relatively high rev limit.

Some of what you guys are attributing to diesel engines comes as much from forced induction as it does from the long stroke characteristics of diesels. Ford's Ecoboost engines make lots of low end torque as well as high peak horsepower. The 3.5L in the F150 puts out 365hp @ 5000rpm and 420ft-lb @ 2500rpm. Compare that with the Ram Ecodiesel that makes 240 hp at 3600 rpm and 420 lb-ft at just 2000 rpm. The F150 is quicker to 60mph by about two seconds even though it is down two gears compared to the Ram.

^^ This is why I stopped arguing with SirO and embraced his awesomeness a long time ago.  Ain't nobody got time to argue with his incredible ability to source his information.

SirO!

*disclaimer: the said statement should not be taken as a reflection of my agreement with either side, but just a proclamation that SirO makes arguments based on fact, which are plainly stated, as compared to my idiotic remarks.

[tpl]

omg, you guys are killing me.  i understand the physics.  and yes a petrol engine is quicker to 100 if you utilize all of the rev band to the redline.  the point i'm making is almost nobody uses their car this way.  they use 60-70% of that range and most of the time around to accelerating to 60kph.  in the case of the mazda 6 diesel, it has been designed with a lower compression ratio giving it even a higher redline.  that 310lb/ft is immediately felt and sustains for a very long power band.  it really is exceptional in this regard and you get a huge increase in fuel efficiency over a v6.

ok, so Sir O winds his v6 out to the redline everywhere he goes.  he's also probably burning through 14L/100km doing it.

I agree entirely.  That is why I for one, don't see a lot of point in the 0-100 ratings as a test of a normal road going car's "goodness"     50-80 or 60-100 in one of the higher gears , manual or automatic, is far more useful and that is where a diesel really shines with all the torque.    I also accept that for cars with "sporting" pretensions that 0-100 is ok.

[OliverD]

*disclaimer: the said statement should not be taken as a reflection of my agreement with either side, but just a proclamation that SirO makes arguments based on fact, which are plainly stated, as compared to my idiotic remarks.

Except, of course, when he needs to argue against the X6 and claim it isn't profitable for BMW.

[Ex-airbalancer]

This why they are taking their time in the US
"Waiting for Diesel to come down around my area, dropped 10 cents over the weekend. Unleaded 2.49 Diesel 3.79" in MN

[mixmanmash]

This why they are taking their time in the US
"Waiting for Diesel to come down around my area, dropped 10 cents over the weekend. Unleaded 2.49 Diesel 3.79" in MN

Tell me about.  Gas is 87.4 cents here and diesel is closer to 120.

[Solstice2006]

This why they are taking their time in the US
"Waiting for Diesel to come down around my area, dropped 10 cents over the weekend. Unleaded 2.49 Diesel 3.79" in MN

Tell me about.  Gas is 87.4 cents here and diesel is closer to 120.

The price gap has stayed constant in Ontario.  About 15 cents on average.  Regular is 104, diesel is 118. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

97¢ for regular, still $1.29 for diesel in Regina.

[bridgecity]

^ Spread here is similar, $0.33/l difference last I saw.

[Ex-airbalancer]

I believe a majority of people in that class will be looking for a car runs on 87 gas

[Noto]

I believe a majority of people in that class will be looking for a car runs on 87 gas

I agree.  None of the pedestrian mid-sizers run on premium.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

every car i've shopped all use premium.  that's the nature of small displacement turbo engines.  i think that's a fairer comparison.

Ford's only require 87 octane. I think the 1.8LTSI in the Golf is similar.

[mixmanmash]

every car i've shopped all use premium.  that's the nature of small displacement turbo engines.  i think that's a fairer comparison.

Ford's only require 87 octane. I think the 1.8LTSI in the Golf is similar.

True, however the power/performance/fuel economy isn't as good as it is on premium.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

every car i've shopped all use premium.  that's the nature of small displacement turbo engines.  i think that's a fairer comparison.

Ford's only require 87 octane. I think the 1.8LTSI in the Golf is similar.

True, however the power/performance/fuel economy isn't as good as it is on premium.

I should have said recommended. All of their ratings are done on regular unleaded. There's no advantage to running premium.

http://www.ford.ca/cars/fusion/specifications/engine/

The 1.8L TSI is the same.

[EV-Light]

every car i've shopped all use premium.  that's the nature of small displacement turbo engines.  i think that's a fairer comparison.

Ford's only require 87 octane. I think the 1.8LTSI in the Golf is similar.

Yup it is 87, I tried 91 for a couple tanks in my Taurus and didn't notice anything different.

My VW isn't turbo, I have the 5cyl. but 87 makes it run rough and weirdly less peppy. It only runs on 91 now...