Mazda Skyactiv 2 engines will be 30 Percent More Efficient: Report

Tony O'Kane | Jan 7, 2014

While many carmakers continue to explore alternative fuels like hydrogen and refine battery-electric powertrains, Mazda is confident that there's still more efficiency that can be squeezed out of the venerable internal-combustion engine.

According to a report by Automotive News, the Japanese company aims to make its second generation of Skyactiv engines around 30 percent more efficient than the current generation - which already boast an admirably low thirst for fuel.

For example, the CX-5 with 2.0 litre Skyactiv petrol returns a claimed 6.4 l/100km on the combined cycle, while the Mazda6 2.5 Skyactiv petrol drinks just 6.6 l/100km.

The diesels fare even better, with the Mazda6 consuming just 5.4 l/100km when equipped with the 2.2 litre Skyactiv-D turbo diesel.

If Mazda successfuly lops 30 percent off the consumption figures of its Skyactiv engine range, we could see a petrol-powered SUV with average fuel economy in the high 4 l/100km range, while the diesel Mazda6 could consume as little as 3.5-4.0 l/100km.

How will they do it? According to Mazda's powertrain boss Mitsuo Hitomi, refinements to the combustion process will net the results they're after.

"If we want to dramatically improve fuel economy from here, the only route is through lean burning," Hitomi said.

Lean burning means a reduction in the amount of fuel injected into each cylinder for a given amount of air, a technique that can produce more power with less fuel, but requires careful tuning to avoid engine longevity issues and emissions of harmful gasses.

An increase in compression ratio will also boost power and torque without impacting fuel consumption, and Mazda reportedly plans to take the petrol Skyactiv engines from an already high 14:1 compression ratio to an unbelievable 18:1.

And all this without a turbocharger in sight, either.

A timeline for the introduction of the Skyactiv 2 engine range has yet to be announced, however Hitomi hints that Mazda will need the new tech if it is to comply with tough European emissions legislation scheduled to come into effect in 2020.

Follow Tony O'Kane on Google+

Filed under: Green, Mazda, mazda6, Technology, mazda3, fuel economy, engine, News, mazda cx-5, mazda skyactiv

Leave a comment:

Required
Required
Enter comment here.
  • martin says,
    10 months ago
    2 likes
    good on you Mazda for not just resorting to a charged engine.smile
  • Honza says,
    10 months ago
    2 likes
    "If Mazda successfuly lops 30 percent off the consumption figures of its Skyactiv engine range, we could see a petrol-powered SUV with average fuel economy in the high 4 l/100km range, while the diesel Mazda6 could consume as little as 3.5-4.0 l/100km."

    hmm still behind the 8 ball go to www.skoda-auto.cz and click on Nová ŠKODA Octavia Combi GreenLine Which is Octavia wagon here we just dont get the GreenLine model

    its 3.3l/100km so seeing as Mazda hasnt even announced a timeline, by the time anything comes out of a factory who knows what Skoda will have by then. Nice attempt Mazda but still way behind the euros for tech.
    • matt says,
      10 months ago
      2 likes
      im sure if mazda made a 1.6 skyactive diesel with only 77kw it would consume about 3 litres too. This article is a theory on the larger mazda 2.2 diesel and if it does/can drop to about 3.5 litres/100 then they are more then "up" with the euros for engine tech, in fact with the NA skyactive petrols i believe they have done something the euros are to lazy to do.... increase efficiency without resorting to hair dryers.
      • Honza says,
        10 months ago
        2 likes
        fair enough on the 1.6 call but a good reason to 'resort to hair dryers' is not just efficiency, its driveability. yes you can get efficiency out of an N/A engine such as what mazda are trying to do but by turbo charging an engine you get the most important thing in day to day driving which is low down torque. you can take off like normal and not have to put your foot through the firewall and dont have to send the motor to redline to get up and move (unlike a swift i recently drove) look at where the 2.0 cx5 and rav4 2.0 develop their torque. its ridiculous for their size. even mazda caved and put the 2.5 in the cx5 and ill still get more torque and better fuel economy (real world not in lab) from a 1.8 turbo VAG motor. The AMG boss said it best "The N/A motor is dead"
        • matt says,
          10 months ago
          1 like
          hey i cant deny that there is better low down performance with Forced induction engines, it does add to driveability. I cannot however agree with increased efficiency. On here the current model skyactive 3 was rated at 6.9 in the real world test with a 6.1 official rating, the 2013 golf90 TSI with an official 5.4 rating came in at 7.7 litres of premium per 100k. I agree other manufacturer's with their NA engines can be thirsty but as far as the Skyactive mazda engines are concerned they seem to better the euros for fuel use in comparable models.
    • karl says,
      9 months ago
      1 like
      Mazda does it's efficiency while maintaining performance and sporty character of the car, yes by going to super low rolling resistance tires and eco oriented engine and transmission mapping... not to mention high revving and performance character of skyD engines ... Sorry Honza but Skoda while solely relying of VW / Audi tech took a path of highest efficiency at cost of performance just like Toyota and Honda did. Easiest path to get highest efficiency , while MAZDA does it and still keep it's performance character...
      I like VW / Audi products and Skoda offers nice products at budget cost... they could do well here in US ....
  • BH says,
    10 months ago
    our CX-5 2.0 is getting 8.5 combined. What's 30% less 8.5.. 6??? Yay we have to do nothing and blame the driver for a heavy foot!
    • matt says,
      10 months ago
      4 likes
      just looked up the review on the 2.0 litre here, they got 8.8 in the real world? Not quite sure why you expect the sticker to apply to your daily use of a vahicle? its still good on fuel mate, if you got a 2.0 litre rav 4 or CRV you would be getting around 10 to the hundred
    • BH says,
      10 months ago
      yeah silly me for thinking advertised point of sale stickers may be truthful useful or three bags full ful
      • matt says,
        10 months ago
        1 like
        mate i like nearly every post you make on here but this.. "yeah silly me for thinking advertised point of sale stickers may be truthful", i cant help but agree with smile, General rule of thumb i personally think is add at least 2 litres to the official claim to give you an idea on what to expect, except mitsubishis, add at least 4 litres lol
        • amlohac says,
          10 months ago
          1 like
          Its a standardiszed testing method, its used as a point of comparission between all vehicles of different types, it was never intended to be an exact figure. Fuel consumption can change according to air temp and road surface, theres too many variables.
  • Kermit says,
    10 months ago
    Keep in mind you're all using ADR volumes for comparison. Traditionally, EU and JP figures are lower than ours so comparing our real world use to claimed EU or JP consumption figures is a little simplistic and somewhat inaccurate.
  • Axe Togrind says,
    10 months ago
    Much fuss is generated for little value when it comes to achieving fuel efficiency. There are too many variables in the real world. EG. using 5.5L/100km instead of 8.5L/100km saves $900 a year, or $17 a week but is that what you will end up saving or it will it be slightly more or slightly less? Who cares?!
    • BH says,
      10 months ago
      2 likes
      It's BS, always has been... And the fact everyone accepts it as BS is even worse. Fairly sure Hyundai got pinged in the US for low balling consumption figures.
      I can cop 10% variance... but 30%??? Come on.

      Hey Officer... 130km/h you say.. speedo says I'm doing 100.. sorry officer you have to add 30% remember!!!
      • FrugalOne says,
        10 months ago
        3 likes
        It's BS, always has been... And the fact everyone accepts it as BS is even worse. Fairly sure Hyundai got pinged in the US for low balling consumption figures.
        I can cop 10% variance... but 30%??? Come on.


        I agree, well picked, 30% is nonsense, unless it has PHEV/Hybrid or pedals

        MAZDA will be owned by somebody else by 2020 anyway

Get the Latest

advertisement