Is premium better for Skyactiv?

[circuitsmith]

The tendency toward spark knock varies with intake air temp, so a summer heat wave is when you're most likely to see a difference with extra octane.
Both cars I've owned (2006 Toyota Matrix, 2017 Hyundai Tucson) with knock sensors are a little peppier with 89 vs 87 when the weather is above 90F.
When I know a heat wave is coming I'll sometimes add 91-93 to half a tank of 87.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
EDIT: Per the Mazda DE (Germany) the fuel requirements for the 2.0 Sky-Active "Super lead-free according to DIN EN 228 (at least 95 RON) suitable for E10"


That would be because the Skyactiv engines sold outside the U.S. have higher compression than the U.S. models. Mazda determined that people in the U.S. would be unwilling to spend the extra money for higher octane fuel in a supposedly "economy car."

 

[alarmguy]

[/quote]

I was thinking with regards to the reduced compression ratio for US vehicles. If it's a matter of software then I suspect the engine could be tuned to run on premium.

Does your son work at the Greer/Spartanburg plant or for BMWNA? I've been to the plant in Greer. BMW moving to the upstate has been a boon for that area. [/quote]

Yes, he works in Greer/Spartanburg.
Yes, again, quite a plant! 11,000 employees plus what must be thousands more for the suppliers.
Good employer.
I did the tour with him years ago, they put us up in the Hilton overnight with dinner at Ruths steakhouse and breakfast (this is before he worked there, he bought a BMW and the tour/overnight stay is a perk) we got to take the cars out on the track ect, was very interesting.

Its pretty cool too, 70% of the automobiles they build there are exported and it is now BMWs largest plant in the world. Over 10 billion invested since it opened, 1,500 automobiles a day.

[URL]https://www.bmwgroup-plants.com/spartanburg/en.html[/url

Sorry didnt mean to hijack this thread. I will update the OP when I fill with premium in the Mazda.

 

[Mr Nice]

When will Skyactiv X engines arrive in the USA ?

I'd love to see real world testing of a Mazda 3 with X engine and 6 speed manual transmission from a dealership..... NOT the test mules they were driving in Europe.

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted by PimTac
The computer handles all the tuning.

Now I do run Shell 92 V Nitro in my CX5. I think it does run a bit better, especially on hills.



CX5 = Nice
We may one day replace the 3 with a CX5. Right now doesnt get used much since my wife works from home, so would be a long time, needless to say we are impressed with Mazda.

Here is a cool story, the Mazda long out of warranty had an issue with the dashboard, seems the heat here in SC slightly separated the plastic above the info center from the top surface of the dashboard/softish foam (for lack of better words)
My wife looked into it, called the dealer, and took it in for them to look at, it seems Mazda acknowledged some had issues with this and replaced the dashboard at zero cost to us. We were very impressed with the dealer and wow, what a way for Mazda to build loyalty.

My 08 Durange will have to be replaced first and go with a Jeep Cherokee with a tow package as we tow a boat

 

[alarmguy]

deleted

 

[tundraotto]

Originally Posted by Rolla07
Originally Posted by tundraotto
You will gain power and fuel economy - and of course the possible higher level of detergents. In my experience the mpg gain does not quite amount to the price difference, but as said there are power and detergent benefits.


This is not true. Higher compression engines yes but itd be specified in the user manual. If it states 87, its 99% likely to be a waste. Ive never noticed any difference on any of my vehicles. Same mpg and power.

I dont know if i buy intothe detergent benefits..regular having the minimum standards, ive never had any fuel system issues, as most others, so hard to prove those detergents change anything.


I personally get 40-60miles more out of a tank, on my own 2.5L Skyactive Mazda6 with 91 vs 87 octane - every time, just not enough to justify the price difference. There is definitely a considerable perfomance boost as well, as the timing is advanced by the computer (by quite a few degrees too).
The compression ratio of the 2.5L Skyactiv is 13:1 in North America and 14:1 elsewhere - that is a VERY high compression ratio for a gasoline engine....in fact I think its the highest compression ratio available on the mass market.
And then you go on about your butt-dyno experience about detergent benefits or lack there of, of some other vehicle....I'll just leave that to air out.

 

[wdn]

Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by wdn
Originally Posted by alarmguy


Actually the Skyactive Mazda engine is developed by the brilliant Mazda engineers and patented too.

It's the highest compression mass produced engine in the world, designed to run on regular gas.



How do you figure that? The 2020 Toyota Corolla has 13:1 compression ratio.

The Corolla also saves you $750 in gas compared to the Mazda3 sedan, in 5 years. Even tricks like cylinder deactivation do not help the Mazda.

The Mazda engine is 13:1 compression ratio, but the Subaru FB20D is very close at 12.5:1. Mazda3 AWD hatchback costs an extra $1,000 in fuel cost over 5 years compared with Impreza hatchback, due to Mazda's 4 MPG worse fuel economy.

A Mazda 2.5 liter engine makes more HP than the competition's 1.8 or 2.0? OK.


Incorrect... its been EIGHT years since Mazda has been building the Skyactive .. read on...

What's the difference? Most will understand the point of being the first and highest for a number of years and honestly I do not know if anyone meets or surpasses them yet. Mazda has many patents on the engineering and speculation at the time would be they license them out as they have done with other firsts in engineering.

Last but not least, your numbers are wrong, the new Mazda Engine is a 14:1 compression Ratio not 12.5:1 and 13:1 like the other makers you mention.


No my numbers are not wrong. The 2020 Mazda3 engine is 13:1 compression. The 2020 Toyota Corolla is 13:1 compression ratio. You are the one making the claim about highest compression ratio on regular gas. Read what you yourself wrote, anyone else can. 13:1 = 13:1


Other people have corrected your inaccurate statement too, I just happened to be the 'first'.

 

[wdn]

Originally Posted by alarmguy
(WND)
I wont get into anymore then what I already said in my original post which is all correct. You can buy any car you want with any gas mileage, this thread is about the Mazda, oh, one last thing, the Mazda produces 185 Hp and the Toyota Corolla (1.8)130 Hp at the same RPMs, also the Mazda creates 186 lbs of torque vs the Toyota 126 Lbs their 2.0 creates 169@6600 and a paltry 151 of torque... whatever floats your boat and whatever gas mileage you want, its our money.

Pimtac your correct 13:1 in USA, thanks for the correction.


Oh I see so when 'Pimtac' informs you the Mazda is 13:1 compression ratio he's right and thanks for the correction, but when I told you the same thing first, I'm wrong. Hilarious.

 

[tundraotto]

Originally Posted by wdn


No my numbers are not wrong. The 2020 Mazda3 engine is 13:1 compression. The 2020 Toyota Corolla is 13:1 compression ratio. You are the one making the claim about highest compression ratio on regular gas. Read what you yourself wrote, anyone else can. 13:1 = 13:1


Other people have corrected your inaccurate statement too, I just happened to be the 'first'.


Throwing stones in glass houses you are....the Mazda 2.5L Skyactiv has been on the market since 2014 with 13:1 compression in North America - 14:1 elsewhere in the world....octane requirement is 87 regular. The 2.0 Skyactiv maybe for even longer....
Is the 2020 Corolla 14:1 elsewhere in the world?

 

[JOD]

long ago, someone posted successive UOAs on here with the claim/hypothesis that premium fuel reduced fuel dilution in their skyactive engine. I could actually see this being the case, but don't really know that much about this engine, or if they still have the fuel dilution problems.

I know that my Alltrack called for 87 octane. When I ran some data logs on the stock tune and an APR 87 octane tune, I noticed that the car pulled timing in certain situations, significantly, on 87 octane. I did enough data logging on various tanks of fuel to stop using 87 octane in a car that was spec'd for it. So, there is definitely a "difference". Will it impact performance? Yeah, under WOT it will, particularly when IAT's rise. Will it impact the long-term health of the engine? Probably not--I imagine there are enough safeguards built into the ECU programming.

No idea what the tangible difference is when using different octanes in the skyactive engines, but I wouldn't treat the mfg's info as absolute gospel. They have a lot of competing interests, once of which is lowering operating costs. When in doubt, "trust, but verify". Butt dyno won't do it, either. You need actual data.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by DBMaster
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
EDIT: Per the Mazda DE (Germany) the fuel requirements for the 2.0 Sky-Active "Super lead-free according to DIN EN 228 (at least 95 RON) suitable for E10"


That would be because the Skyactiv engines sold outside the U.S. have higher compression than the U.S. models. Mazda determined that people in the U.S. would be unwilling to spend the extra money for higher octane fuel in a supposedly "economy car."


Ya, as I mentioned a few posts above, I'm wondering if Mazda modified the compression ratio via software or with parts.

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted by wdn
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by wdn
Originally Posted by alarmguy


Actually the Skyactive Mazda engine is developed by the brilliant Mazda engineers and patented too.

It's the highest compression mass produced engine in the world, designed to run on regular gas.



How do you figure that? The 2020 Toyota Corolla has 13:1 compression ratio.

The Corolla also saves you $750 in gas compared to the Mazda3 sedan, in 5 years. Even tricks like cylinder deactivation do not help the Mazda.

The Mazda engine is 13:1 compression ratio, but the Subaru FB20D is very close at 12.5:1. Mazda3 AWD hatchback costs an extra $1,000 in fuel cost over 5 years compared with Impreza hatchback, due to Mazda's 4 MPG worse fuel economy.

A Mazda 2.5 liter engine makes more HP than the competition's 1.8 or 2.0? OK.


Incorrect... its been EIGHT years since Mazda has been building the Skyactive .. read on...

What's the difference? Most will understand the point of being the first and highest for a number of years and honestly I do not know if anyone meets or surpasses them yet. Mazda has many patents on the engineering and speculation at the time would be they license them out as they have done with other firsts in engineering.

Last but not least, your numbers are wrong, the new Mazda Engine is a 14:1 compression Ratio not 12.5:1 and 13:1 like the other makers you mention.


No my numbers are not wrong. The 2020 Mazda3 engine is 13:1 compression. The 2020 Toyota Corolla is 13:1 compression ratio. You are the one making the claim about highest compression ratio on regular gas. Read what you yourself wrote, anyone else can. 13:1 = 13:1


Other people have corrected your inaccurate statement too, I just happened to be the 'first'.




Read the whole thread and dont be selective, glad Toyota caught up to Mazda, quite possibly using their patents. When Mazda came out with the engine in 2012 Toyota Corolla ratio was 10:1

and ... dont selectively read threads..where someone pointed out in the USA the engine is as you say 13:1, yes my mistake and also dont ignore the better specs HP and Torque of the Skyactive to Corolla.
and ... the OP was not discussing your Corolla, you brought that into the thread.

https://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/

 

[PimTac]

The Toyota Mazda agreement included Mazda sharing SkyActiv technology to Toyota and in return Mazda got access to Toyota hybrid and battery technology.

The new MTMUS will assemble both Mazda and Toyota vehicles. The bigger benefit for Mazda is Toyota's supply stream.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted by JOD
long ago, someone posted successive UOAs on here with the claim/hypothesis that premium fuel reduced fuel dilution in their skyactive engine. I could actually see this being the case, but don't really know that much about this engine, or if they still have the fuel dilution problems.

I know that my Alltrack called for 87 octane. When I ran some data logs on the stock tune and an APR 87 octane tune, I noticed that the car pulled timing in certain situations, significantly, on 87 octane. I did enough data logging on various tanks of fuel to stop using 87 octane in a car that was spec'd for it. So, there is definitely a "difference". Will it impact performance? Yeah, under WOT it will, particularly when IAT's rise. Will it impact the long-term health of the engine? Probably not--I imagine there are enough safeguards built into the ECU programming.

No idea what the tangible difference is when using different octanes in the skyactive engines, but I wouldn't treat the mfg's info as absolute gospel. They have a lot of competing interests, once of which is lowering operating costs. When in doubt, "trust, but verify". Butt dyno won't do it, either. You need actual data.


I posted a UOA about three years ago after running a 30,000 mile OCI. I was using microGreen filters and wanted to validate that the oil was still usable - it was. I know that Blackstone Labs' fuel dilution test is not the best, but my oil showed fuel dilution far below the "standard" value and the oil had actually increased slightly in viscosity during the 30,000 mile run. Unfortunately, microGreen has gone out of business so I'm going to settle for 15,000 mile OCI's using M1 0W-20 EP and Fram Ultra filters.

 

[R18Civic]

With a compression ratio that high, I'd only feel comfortable using premium.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted by Hemispheres
With a compression ratio that high, I'd only feel comfortable using premium.


Mazda spent a lot of advertising dollars back in 2012 when Skyactiv was launched in the U.S. explaining what they did to allow the car to run on 87 octane fuel. But, if lots of people prefer to enrich the oil industry, go for it. It's your money.

 

[Eddie]

A great deal of speculating, guessing and statements, not supported with any meaningful data. I would like to see some data that yields numbers, that using 91 octane fuel delivers more usable power or fuel mileage or more torque. Ed

 

[wolf_06]

I just filled up with 87 octane at shell today. 87 octane and up to 10% ethanol. Last week was on 91 octane at shell as well, no ethanol here with premium in Canada.

I wonder if ethanol as an impact on skyactive??

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Eddie
A great deal of speculating, guessing and statements, not supported with any meaningful data. I would like to see some data that yields numbers, that using 91 octane fuel delivers more usable power or fuel mileage or more torque. Ed


Should be easy to test with the appropriate datalogging equipment. Watch ignition timing (and knock retard) as well as enrichment.