I would only be interested in the Miata as a liftback that can hold at least a couple of small suitcases, OR one dissassembled bicycle, OR one upright bag of groceries. What kind of useless car can't even take me to the airport, or stop for groceries? Put a crumb of hatchback utility into the Miata, and watch it sell like hotcakes. They could even make it a GT and charge more, like Porsche.
Mazda: make the MX-5 lighter, not more powerful
- Thread starter d00df00d
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Mark_Walk
Didn't Ford force Mazda to use some of their transmissions.....that were less than reliable?
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Mazda provided Ford with A/T's that weren't entirely reliable (or maybe I should say 'durable')....like the F4-EAT in the Escort
Didn't Ford force Mazda to use some of their transmissions.....that were less than reliable?
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Mazda provided Ford with A/T's that weren't entirely reliable (or maybe I should say 'durable')....like the F4-EAT in the Escort
Mazda provided Ford with some front drivers F4-EAT that was not so reiliable, 4F27 in the focii which wasn't that bad but not that great.
They provided the engineering basis for the "Duratec" family of 4 cylinders and what still lives on (highly evolved, though) as the TI-VCT 2.0, 2.5I4 and 2.0/3 Ecoboost engines.
There was a bit of platform sharing, too. The Fusion (1 and 2 generation), 1st gen Edge, 1st gen Escape and the Fiesta were all related to Mazda products.
They provided the engineering basis for the "Duratec" family of 4 cylinders and what still lives on (highly evolved, though) as the TI-VCT 2.0, 2.5I4 and 2.0/3 Ecoboost engines.
There was a bit of platform sharing, too. The Fusion (1 and 2 generation), 1st gen Edge, 1st gen Escape and the Fiesta were all related to Mazda products.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
Originally Posted By: Mark_Walk
Didn't Ford force Mazda to use some of their transmissions.....that were less than reliable?
My 1994 Ford pickup has a Mazda transmission made in Japan. The transmission is by far the most cantankerous and worn out part on the truck.
Then again I put over 500 miles on that 22 year old pickup today driving it across 4 states, and it didn't miss a beat, so I can't complain too much...
Didn't Ford force Mazda to use some of their transmissions.....that were less than reliable?
My 1994 Ford pickup has a Mazda transmission made in Japan. The transmission is by far the most cantankerous and worn out part on the truck.
Then again I put over 500 miles on that 22 year old pickup today driving it across 4 states, and it didn't miss a beat, so I can't complain too much...
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
What an oasis of sanity in the current auto industry!
Mazda it so often WAY ahead of the industry curve when it comes to making a really good car in all possible ways.
What an oasis of sanity in the current auto industry!
Mazda it so often WAY ahead of the industry curve when it comes to making a really good car in all possible ways.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: GiveMeAVowel
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
What an oasis of sanity in the current auto industry!
Mazda it so often WAY ahead of the industry curve when it comes to making a really good car in all possible ways.
What Mazda did in Europe?
They sell Mazda 6 with diesel engines that only have DPF and not SCR (although they meet Euro 6 norma that is as strict as US NoX requirements). How?
Well they decided not to compete with rest of the industry who will make more powerful engine, so they lowered hp and torque by lowering injection pressure. Their engines have less hp and consume bit more fuel. But no SCR system, which means drivers do not have to worry about system that costs several thousands dollars, has 5-7 sensors, Urea tanks, injectors into exhaust system etc.
Sanity at work!
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
What an oasis of sanity in the current auto industry!
Mazda it so often WAY ahead of the industry curve when it comes to making a really good car in all possible ways.
What Mazda did in Europe?
They sell Mazda 6 with diesel engines that only have DPF and not SCR (although they meet Euro 6 norma that is as strict as US NoX requirements). How?
Well they decided not to compete with rest of the industry who will make more powerful engine, so they lowered hp and torque by lowering injection pressure. Their engines have less hp and consume bit more fuel. But no SCR system, which means drivers do not have to worry about system that costs several thousands dollars, has 5-7 sensors, Urea tanks, injectors into exhaust system etc.
Sanity at work!
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
The 1.9 engines were completely developped by Fiat, but the more powerful versions were reserved for use by Fiat owned brands only. still, it was a very good dal for GM/Opel/Vauxhall as they didn't have anything that came close in either reliability, durability or refinement when it comes to diesel engines.
The 2.0 is a development of the 1.9 and GM + Fiat are starting to go their seperate ways now but all parts so far are interchangeable between both, if not the same. Software and injection equipment is where the differences are mostly found. and there's no FPT logos on the cast parts...
The 1.6 used by GM shares the stroke and bore with the Fiat 1.6 engine, but uses an aluminium block. Here's where you see they're setting up their own development again.
The 1.3 is also a Fiat development.
The 1.7 cdti had a lot of Fiat input but the basic design is not by them. they added the common rail system, so to say.
The 2.4 was a terrific engine, had one myself. Heavy though and not many engine bays can take a 5 in line transverse engine even though the design is actually quite compact.
GM sells a Fiat Doblo as the Opel/Vauxhall Combo atm.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
The 1.9 engines were completely developped by Fiat, but the more powerful versions were reserved for use by Fiat owned brands only. still, it was a very good dal for GM/Opel/Vauxhall as they didn't have anything that came close in either reliability, durability or refinement when it comes to diesel engines.
The 2.0 is a development of the 1.9 and GM + Fiat are starting to go their seperate ways now but all parts so far are interchangeable between both, if not the same. Software and injection equipment is where the differences are mostly found. and there's no FPT logos on the cast parts...
The 1.6 used by GM shares the stroke and bore with the Fiat 1.6 engine, but uses an aluminium block. Here's where you see they're setting up their own development again.
The 1.3 is also a Fiat development.
The 1.7 cdti had a lot of Fiat input but the basic design is not by them. they added the common rail system, so to say.
The 2.4 was a terrific engine, had one myself. Heavy though and not many engine bays can take a 5 in line transverse engine even though the design is actually quite compact.
GM sells a Fiat Doblo as the Opel/Vauxhall Combo atm.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
They are similar. GM can't use later developments of JTDm's, but it can use basic engine and do whatever they wish to. Software (and ancillary) is WAY better on FCA cars, that is the reason they are faster and more refined.
I don't think they are in dispute now since GM is selling rebadged FIATs. On a side note so does Ford.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
They are similar. GM can't use later developments of JTDm's, but it can use basic engine and do whatever they wish to. Software (and ancillary) is WAY better on FCA cars, that is the reason they are faster and more refined.
I don't think they are in dispute now since GM is selling rebadged FIATs. On a side note so does Ford.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
The 1.9 engines were completely developped by Fiat, but the more powerful versions were reserved for use by Fiat owned brands only. still, it was a very good dal for GM/Opel/Vauxhall as they didn't have anything that came close in either reliability, durability or refinement when it comes to diesel engines.
The 2.0 is a development of the 1.9 and GM + Fiat are starting to go their seperate ways now but all parts so far are interchangeable between both, if not the same. Software and injection equipment is where the differences are mostly found. and there's no FPT logos on the cast parts...
The 1.6 used by GM shares the stroke and bore with the Fiat 1.6 engine, but uses an aluminium block. Here's where you see they're setting up their own development again.
The 1.3 is also a Fiat development.
The 1.7 cdti had a lot of Fiat input but the basic design is not by them. they added the common rail system, so to say.
The 2.4 was a terrific engine, had one myself. Heavy though and not many engine bays can take a 5 in line transverse engine even though the design is actually quite compact.
GM sells a Fiat Doblo as the Opel/Vauxhall Combo atm.
1.7 CDTI is a development of a ancient Isuzu. Fiat developed head and CR for it back then.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
The 1.9 engines were completely developped by Fiat, but the more powerful versions were reserved for use by Fiat owned brands only. still, it was a very good dal for GM/Opel/Vauxhall as they didn't have anything that came close in either reliability, durability or refinement when it comes to diesel engines.
The 2.0 is a development of the 1.9 and GM + Fiat are starting to go their seperate ways now but all parts so far are interchangeable between both, if not the same. Software and injection equipment is where the differences are mostly found. and there's no FPT logos on the cast parts...
The 1.6 used by GM shares the stroke and bore with the Fiat 1.6 engine, but uses an aluminium block. Here's where you see they're setting up their own development again.
The 1.3 is also a Fiat development.
The 1.7 cdti had a lot of Fiat input but the basic design is not by them. they added the common rail system, so to say.
The 2.4 was a terrific engine, had one myself. Heavy though and not many engine bays can take a 5 in line transverse engine even though the design is actually quite compact.
GM sells a Fiat Doblo as the Opel/Vauxhall Combo atm.
1.7 CDTI is a development of a ancient Isuzu. Fiat developed head and CR for it back then.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
The 1.9 engines were completely developped by Fiat, but the more powerful versions were reserved for use by Fiat owned brands only. still, it was a very good dal for GM/Opel/Vauxhall as they didn't have anything that came close in either reliability, durability or refinement when it comes to diesel engines.
The 2.0 is a development of the 1.9 and GM + Fiat are starting to go their seperate ways now but all parts so far are interchangeable between both, if not the same. Software and injection equipment is where the differences are mostly found. and there's no FPT logos on the cast parts...
The 1.6 used by GM shares the stroke and bore with the Fiat 1.6 engine, but uses an aluminium block. Here's where you see they're setting up their own development again.
The 1.3 is also a Fiat development.
The 1.7 cdti had a lot of Fiat input but the basic design is not by them. they added the common rail system, so to say.
The 2.4 was a terrific engine, had one myself. Heavy though and not many engine bays can take a 5 in line transverse engine even though the design is actually quite compact.
GM sells a Fiat Doblo as the Opel/Vauxhall Combo atm.
I am not sure about 1.7CDTI. It is development from old ISUZU engines but they definitely used some know-how gained from FIAT.
Are you talking about 1.6 gasoline engine or diesel engine? OPEL in my opinion always had better 1.6 gasoline engines if not the best in Europe. Old 1.6 OHC and the DOHC etc. I would say FIAT used there OPEL's know how. However, with diesels OPEL had serious issues. I am old enough to remember OPEL's 1.5d, 1.6d, then 1.7d. Best diesel engine that OPEL had ever in their cars was BMW's 2.5 inline 6 in Omega B.
As for 5cyl JTD, yeah, it was heavy and transverse, but it was FAST!
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GM is still using engines it aquired from Fiat during that 'investment'.... and even sells rebadged fiats now...
I think GM developed 2.8 and 3.6 V6 based on Fiat's input. They used 1.9JTD but I am not sure current 2.0 diesels are based on JTD.
They just do not go as JTD's. I had Lancia Lybra 2.4 JTD. I called it "the killer."
The 1.9 engines were completely developped by Fiat, but the more powerful versions were reserved for use by Fiat owned brands only. still, it was a very good dal for GM/Opel/Vauxhall as they didn't have anything that came close in either reliability, durability or refinement when it comes to diesel engines.
The 2.0 is a development of the 1.9 and GM + Fiat are starting to go their seperate ways now but all parts so far are interchangeable between both, if not the same. Software and injection equipment is where the differences are mostly found. and there's no FPT logos on the cast parts...
The 1.6 used by GM shares the stroke and bore with the Fiat 1.6 engine, but uses an aluminium block. Here's where you see they're setting up their own development again.
The 1.3 is also a Fiat development.
The 1.7 cdti had a lot of Fiat input but the basic design is not by them. they added the common rail system, so to say.
The 2.4 was a terrific engine, had one myself. Heavy though and not many engine bays can take a 5 in line transverse engine even though the design is actually quite compact.
GM sells a Fiat Doblo as the Opel/Vauxhall Combo atm.
I am not sure about 1.7CDTI. It is development from old ISUZU engines but they definitely used some know-how gained from FIAT.
Are you talking about 1.6 gasoline engine or diesel engine? OPEL in my opinion always had better 1.6 gasoline engines if not the best in Europe. Old 1.6 OHC and the DOHC etc. I would say FIAT used there OPEL's know how. However, with diesels OPEL had serious issues. I am old enough to remember OPEL's 1.5d, 1.6d, then 1.7d. Best diesel engine that OPEL had ever in their cars was BMW's 2.5 inline 6 in Omega B.
As for 5cyl JTD, yeah, it was heavy and transverse, but it was FAST!
I'm only refrencing diesel engines.
the only GM engines used by fiat I'm aware of are the v6 holden but with a bespoke set of fiat heads on them bumping power by about 50 bhp. This ended around 2011 or so though...
the only GM engines used by fiat I'm aware of are the v6 holden but with a bespoke set of fiat heads on them bumping power by about 50 bhp. This ended around 2011 or so though...
And 1.8 16v, and 2.2 16v in Croma and 159. In Alfa 2.2 gained bespoke cylinder head, and bottom, not sure for 1.8. Croma had unchanged GM units (minor changes).
Eddy,
Have to disagree that Opel's 1.6 was better than 8v Lampredi or 16v later engines' based on Lampredi 128 motors. Of course nothing wrong with Opel engines, they were very durable, low maintenance, long life engines.
Eddy,
Have to disagree that Opel's 1.6 was better than 8v Lampredi or 16v later engines' based on Lampredi 128 motors. Of course nothing wrong with Opel engines, they were very durable, low maintenance, long life engines.
Originally Posted By: chrisri
And 1.8 16v, and 2.2 16v in Croma and 159. In Alfa 2.2 gained bespoke cylinder head, and bottom, not sure for 1.8. Croma had unchanged GM units (minor changes).
Eddy,
Have to disagree that Opel's 1.6 was better than 8v Lampredi or 16v later engines' based on Lampredi 128 motors. Of course nothing wrong with Opel engines, they were very durable, low maintenance, long life engines.
Well, I was taking into consideration longevity of OPEL engines, especially OHC engines.
But if you want to talk about better italian engine, then that is 1.6 boxer with 103hp.
And 1.8 16v, and 2.2 16v in Croma and 159. In Alfa 2.2 gained bespoke cylinder head, and bottom, not sure for 1.8. Croma had unchanged GM units (minor changes).
Eddy,
Have to disagree that Opel's 1.6 was better than 8v Lampredi or 16v later engines' based on Lampredi 128 motors. Of course nothing wrong with Opel engines, they were very durable, low maintenance, long life engines.
Well, I was taking into consideration longevity of OPEL engines, especially OHC engines.
But if you want to talk about better italian engine, then that is 1.6 boxer with 103hp.
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: chrisri
And 1.8 16v, and 2.2 16v in Croma and 159. In Alfa 2.2 gained bespoke cylinder head, and bottom, not sure for 1.8. Croma had unchanged GM units (minor changes).
Eddy,
Have to disagree that Opel's 1.6 was better than 8v Lampredi or 16v later engines' based on Lampredi 128 motors. Of course nothing wrong with Opel engines, they were very durable, low maintenance, long life engines.
Well, I was taking into consideration longevity of OPEL engines, especially OHC engines.
But if you want to talk about better italian engine, then that is 1.6 boxer with 103hp.
Nah, never was fan of boxers, they were fine in light Suds and 33s, but complete rubbish in later, heavy type 2 chassis cars. Alfa's TS 16v (pratola sera /jtd sibling) was delivering 144 hp, and 180ish NM from 1.8 litre, Euro 3 , and reved to 7300 rpm all day long. One of best flowing cylinder head on a mass produced 4 pot IMO.
Originally Posted By: chrisri
And 1.8 16v, and 2.2 16v in Croma and 159. In Alfa 2.2 gained bespoke cylinder head, and bottom, not sure for 1.8. Croma had unchanged GM units (minor changes).
Eddy,
Have to disagree that Opel's 1.6 was better than 8v Lampredi or 16v later engines' based on Lampredi 128 motors. Of course nothing wrong with Opel engines, they were very durable, low maintenance, long life engines.
Well, I was taking into consideration longevity of OPEL engines, especially OHC engines.
But if you want to talk about better italian engine, then that is 1.6 boxer with 103hp.
Nah, never was fan of boxers, they were fine in light Suds and 33s, but complete rubbish in later, heavy type 2 chassis cars. Alfa's TS 16v (pratola sera /jtd sibling) was delivering 144 hp, and 180ish NM from 1.8 litre, Euro 3 , and reved to 7300 rpm all day long. One of best flowing cylinder head on a mass produced 4 pot IMO.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
