Anyone Here Get Their 2.5T Tuned Yet?
- Thread starter MLC LS1
- Start date
Antoine
Administrator
I'm cheering for you guys, Mazda Owners need more options. Spread the word about this thread, get people to join and post here about this...Let's build a demand center here and keep the conversation alive...I wonder, if Mazda turns the next gen Mazda6 into a high performance model (and the other models receive a variant with the same treatment eventually)..It could help "boost" the overall Mazda Aftermarket.
- :
- 16 CX-5 Tour'ngAWD
I'm cheering for more mazda aftermarket too, but if you notice, the aftermarket is built around cars in which the owners like to "hoon" around in (on road or even off road). The only real, current Mazda product that fits that bill is the MX-5. All other current Mazda offerings do not support the "hooniverse" culture.
In road and rally racing, what Mazda products are being used? This question will show you where any (performance) aftermarket will cater too.
Before the aftermarket steps up, they need to see a product to support, and a culture around that product that wants more than than stock and continue where the factory stopped. The CX-5, any engine, is not in this category.
If Mazda were to develop a Mazdaspeed 3, 6, or even a Mazdaspeed CX-5, using the 2.5t engine, then the aftermarket might take notice. Maybe the vehicle tuning scene would go beyond simple things like intakes/exhausts, stiffer bushings, and suspension upgrades. Then again, maybe it wouldn't.
A culture has to be in place before the aftermarket gets involved. Right now, there is no go-fast, hooniverse culture surrounding the CX-5 let alone Mazda in general.
Antoine
Administrator
Great points...There is talk of this turbo engine being used to possibly bring back Mazdaspeed and or a new higher performance / grade tier. I agree that Mazda needs to inject serious performance potential into its lineup to have a better chance at reviving the aftermarket...A new flagship high performance model would not hurt either!
Still...Showing interest via this thread and keeping the discussion going can only help this cause...Like, post and share if you want to see more aftermarket support!
- :
- Canada
CorkSport has also been pretty receptive in terms of hearing their customers out and bringing certain things to market, like their air intakes and even an exhaust option for the CX-9, of all vehicles. They have also developed intercooler and boost piping upgrades. Bolt-ons are cool and all, but once someone figures out how to tune the 2.5T, they can really make use of all those bolt-on parts to make some real power. Then, once people are made aware of what it can do, other companies/tuners will hopefully be more likely to hop on the 2.5T wagon.
I personally feel like it makes a lot of sense to put resources into tuning the 2.5T engine because it's currently available in three different models with lots of talk of putting it in others (like the Mazda3).
EDIT: Like the *AWD Mazda3 hatch
I personally feel like it makes a lot of sense to put resources into tuning the 2.5T engine because it's currently available in three different models with lots of talk of putting it in others (like the Mazda3).
EDIT: Like the *AWD Mazda3 hatch
Last edited:
speed3chris1
2021 Signature CX-9
I talked To Daniel from DR Tuning Friday and he told me that he has abandoned tuning work on the 2016-2018 2.5T because it uses the gen3 computer and only deals with the CX-9 and the 2018 Mazda 6. So he is going to start working on the gen4 computer which covers more platforms which will with give him a head start on the new gen5 which will be coming out soon. So for all of us that have 2016-2018 CX-9's are probably out to lunch. With the new Mazda 3 coming out I guarantee all of the tuners will be jumping in for that platform.
I added a K&N air cleaner and got more then I expected. 11HP and 15Torque local Mazda was impressed.
Does the 2019-2020 have the gen4 computer?
- :
- Canada
speed3chris1
2021 Signature CX-9
The gen4 is in the 2019-2020 but I am thinking most of the tuners will start working on the Mazda 3 when it comes out because that will be the biggest bang for the buck.
- :
- MAZDA CX-9
Hi, I am interested!
Won’t the mazda 3 be a gen 4 computer and if so it would make sense to start on our platform as it’s been in production longer.
- :
- Canada
Just a guess, but it seems that the gen3 computer is different enough to warrant the decision. Since the gen3 is only available on pre-2019 MYs with the turbo (16-18 CX-9 and 18 Mazda6, both low volume sellers), and the gen4 is more widely available on the newer models with higher volume (specifically the CX-5), it makes sense to start there from a business perspective.
Its just a shame as the early adopters were the ones that were most vocal about wanting a tune, and now they're getting shafted.
Did you dyno your CX-9?
Holy Moses, that was an interesting thread from 3 years ago. I believe that guy got banned but was spewing nonsense about Mazda engineering.
I’d have to get all my notes from that time period, but it was some cool stuff Mazda worked on. Many of which you can see in Dave Colman’s interviews. He’s a top engineer with Mazda. Not sure if he’s still with the company or not, but was with the rollouts of various SKYACTIV products.
To quote myself from 3 years ago, I didn’t think anyone would bother with this motor unless it found its way into a performance varient. The upcoming Mazda3 Turbo is the best chance at that. It’s a lot of time and resources to invest in performance of a family hauler. I, for one, have zero interest upgrading the performance of my 2017 CX-9.
I just don’t think the 3 is going to gather that much support either, to be honest. No M/T and starts at $30K. Plus, tests have shown that while the engine puts out impressive paper specs, it isn’t tuned to light up the pavement.
I remember when the Mazdaspeed6 and 3 came out, CP-E put in the time and made some really good performance upgrades. Cobb has an AcessPort too. A buddy of mine had a speed6 that was a monster. I just don’t see that type of demand or direction with the Mazda3 Turbo...
You wanna go fast, buy a high compression NA V8, 5th gen LT1's in the Alpha based SS or C7 Corvettes are awesome, especially if you track the car. Turbo engines tend to get slower and slower as you track them because it's very hard to keep IC temps down, especially in hot weather unless you use some massive inter cooler that induces a lot of lag (not good for road course, but ok for drag).
Obviously the chassis design of the modern muscle cars are for high performance applications pushing close to or over 1g lateral acceleration. A CX-9 or 6 just isn't meant for that. It's a "performance daily driver" as I call it. A nice balance of decent road holding vs. ride quality and suspension geometry that balances grip vs. wear rates.
BTW, I had always heard that right around 450 HP to 500 HP was the sweet spot for a mid-sized performance car and until I had a 2016 Mustang GT making 480 HP at the crank (about 435 HP at the wheels), I didn't really understand why people said that. Turbo 4's and V6's just won't do for performance cars any longer after having spent time with a high performance NA V8, there's just nothing like it. I did the whole turbo 4 thing (350 HP crank or 315 HP at the wheels). It was fun but always left me wanting more. Ok, maybe some 400 HP turbo 4 Audi's come close in performance, but they won't hold up under track conditions as well as an NA V8. Plus if you want more power, you can still super charge the V8 and make power a turbo 4 could only dream of, but it's spendy at best.
That being said, the 2.5 T in the CX-9 is a great engine for a daily driver, it has a good balance of power vs. torque. When you get into higher performance engines, practicality starts to drop really fast. Maintenance is higher, fuel economy suffers, things wear out faster, ride quality suffers and components are more likely to physically break etc. My 2016 Msutang GT ate tires like there was no tomorrow and I ended up shearing a diff mounting bolt requirement be to drop the whole rear end. Tires for that weren't cheap, $1200 a set!
Also having had a 2016 Mustang Ecoboost previously that was tuned by Ford Performance which was installed by the Ford dealership and registered for warranty (that's how you kept the warranty, it could only be Ford Performance and had to be isntalled by a dealer), I"ve done the whole tuned turbo 4 thing...I also saw tons of Mustang Ecoboost guys use after market PCM calibrations on the forum on the stock rotating assembly and throw rods or crack pistons after 20k to 30k miles. That's a $7k engine replacement NOT covered under warranty. And most of these engines were new, not with 100k miles on them already. People would come to the forum freaking out because they just trashed a $7,000 engine on a nearly brand new car they were making payments on just because they wanted 20 hp or 30 hp more...
Is there more performance in the SkyActive-G 2.5T? Sure, but at what cost? This is not a built racing motor with Mahle Forged pistons and H-Beam rods, big turbo, air to oil cooler etc. You want it to last find OTHER ways to increase power output than messing with the PCM calibration.
I'm sorry but some dude messing with the PCM calibration data tables which have thousands of values in them on a dyno is not going to reliably get more power out of the car than the OE. He isn't mapping the engine out like the OE's do. He isn't doing an initial base map on a full environmentally chambered engine dyno then doing live drive altitude, humidity and temperature testing using a full ECU data pack system that gathers data from all the sensors in real time like the ECU does.
These geniuses are using OBDII which only reports at 200mS to 300mS intervals (1/50th of the ECU's operating rate). ECU's run cycle by cycle and make real time changes in the 8mS to 10mS range. There are a LOT of trashed Turbo 4's, high compression 6's and 8's because of "shop tunes". Engines have become far more complex than the old carburetor days.
"shop tunes" are best left for built engines on cars that are primarily track cars and run on race gas or other highly controlled fuels. Also you eat up safety margins for if something mechanically malfunctions in the engine or that allow some compensation for degraded performance due to normal wear. There is less margin available to scale back timing, throttle and fuel to prevent super knock or even LSPI conditions which are a function of ECU tuning, physical engine design and oil formulations (dependent on all 3) along with environmentals etc.
When I had my Mustang Ecoboost 2.3T prior to the GT V8, I only had it tuned because Ford Performance is Ford's own performance division and they map out their high performance calibrations using the same methods as the OE, but they aren't pushing rediculous gains claimed by most non OE companies. Your just basically giving up low octane fuels (87, 89 etc.) and using a higher flowing intake (which BTW also requires ECU mapping to get air flow measurements correct, most CAI's mess with the ECU's reading and lean out the engine, risking higher knock that can over time damage rings and lands).
Obviously the chassis design of the modern muscle cars are for high performance applications pushing close to or over 1g lateral acceleration. A CX-9 or 6 just isn't meant for that. It's a "performance daily driver" as I call it. A nice balance of decent road holding vs. ride quality and suspension geometry that balances grip vs. wear rates.
BTW, I had always heard that right around 450 HP to 500 HP was the sweet spot for a mid-sized performance car and until I had a 2016 Mustang GT making 480 HP at the crank (about 435 HP at the wheels), I didn't really understand why people said that. Turbo 4's and V6's just won't do for performance cars any longer after having spent time with a high performance NA V8, there's just nothing like it. I did the whole turbo 4 thing (350 HP crank or 315 HP at the wheels). It was fun but always left me wanting more. Ok, maybe some 400 HP turbo 4 Audi's come close in performance, but they won't hold up under track conditions as well as an NA V8. Plus if you want more power, you can still super charge the V8 and make power a turbo 4 could only dream of, but it's spendy at best.
That being said, the 2.5 T in the CX-9 is a great engine for a daily driver, it has a good balance of power vs. torque. When you get into higher performance engines, practicality starts to drop really fast. Maintenance is higher, fuel economy suffers, things wear out faster, ride quality suffers and components are more likely to physically break etc. My 2016 Msutang GT ate tires like there was no tomorrow and I ended up shearing a diff mounting bolt requirement be to drop the whole rear end. Tires for that weren't cheap, $1200 a set!
Also having had a 2016 Mustang Ecoboost previously that was tuned by Ford Performance which was installed by the Ford dealership and registered for warranty (that's how you kept the warranty, it could only be Ford Performance and had to be isntalled by a dealer), I"ve done the whole tuned turbo 4 thing...I also saw tons of Mustang Ecoboost guys use after market PCM calibrations on the forum on the stock rotating assembly and throw rods or crack pistons after 20k to 30k miles. That's a $7k engine replacement NOT covered under warranty. And most of these engines were new, not with 100k miles on them already. People would come to the forum freaking out because they just trashed a $7,000 engine on a nearly brand new car they were making payments on just because they wanted 20 hp or 30 hp more...
Is there more performance in the SkyActive-G 2.5T? Sure, but at what cost? This is not a built racing motor with Mahle Forged pistons and H-Beam rods, big turbo, air to oil cooler etc. You want it to last find OTHER ways to increase power output than messing with the PCM calibration.
I'm sorry but some dude messing with the PCM calibration data tables which have thousands of values in them on a dyno is not going to reliably get more power out of the car than the OE. He isn't mapping the engine out like the OE's do. He isn't doing an initial base map on a full environmentally chambered engine dyno then doing live drive altitude, humidity and temperature testing using a full ECU data pack system that gathers data from all the sensors in real time like the ECU does.
These geniuses are using OBDII which only reports at 200mS to 300mS intervals (1/50th of the ECU's operating rate). ECU's run cycle by cycle and make real time changes in the 8mS to 10mS range. There are a LOT of trashed Turbo 4's, high compression 6's and 8's because of "shop tunes". Engines have become far more complex than the old carburetor days.
"shop tunes" are best left for built engines on cars that are primarily track cars and run on race gas or other highly controlled fuels. Also you eat up safety margins for if something mechanically malfunctions in the engine or that allow some compensation for degraded performance due to normal wear. There is less margin available to scale back timing, throttle and fuel to prevent super knock or even LSPI conditions which are a function of ECU tuning, physical engine design and oil formulations (dependent on all 3) along with environmentals etc.
When I had my Mustang Ecoboost 2.3T prior to the GT V8, I only had it tuned because Ford Performance is Ford's own performance division and they map out their high performance calibrations using the same methods as the OE, but they aren't pushing rediculous gains claimed by most non OE companies. Your just basically giving up low octane fuels (87, 89 etc.) and using a higher flowing intake (which BTW also requires ECU mapping to get air flow measurements correct, most CAI's mess with the ECU's reading and lean out the engine, risking higher knock that can over time damage rings and lands).
Last edited:
Yah yah yah, I type a lot, but my responses are thorough. You want more power without sacraficing reliablilty? STOP using K&N filters, CAI's etc. on non-performance cars. Focus on maintenance and reducing friction losses through the use of In Situ Hydrogenated DLC coatings and run motor oils that use MoDTC (organin moly) additives like many of the newer formulations from Penzoil, Valvoline, Mobil 1 etc. You don't need AMSOIL etc. or other boutique oils that cost 2x to 3x, just find something that has UOA's showing a decent amount of Moly.
In regards to Hydrogenated DLC coatings, in particular I'm referencing TriboTEX (Synthetic Magnesium Silicate Hydroxide) which has undergone extensive R&D (SBIR phase 1 and 2, multiple ASTM tests, Wedeven Hypoid Gear test etc.). There are engine and gearbox formulations now available. You'd be surprise at how much power you can pick up by reducing friction losses all without messing with gear, ECU calibrations, intakes etc.
The research data is attached to this post. I have more that what's below, but that's a good start. Researching Tribology isn't for everyone (yes, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and I"m an auto enthusiast, so I apply my ability to learn to other fields as well).
This is not an oil additive. It is a DLC coating that forms in operation and reaches super lubricity levels. Typically lasts around 40k miles depending on application in ICE's (Internal Combustion Engines) and round 80k miles in automatic transaxles or manual gearboxes. The wear rates of the DLC coatings are lower when used with organic molybdenum compounds (developed by Infinium in 2009) aka MoDTC (NOT MOS2).
What is so great about TriboTEX is you don't need to buy a brand new car that has a factory applied DLC coating during the production process. Also vapor deposited DLC coatings are a one time use, so once they wear off the parts inside the engine, you would need to take the engine apart and re-apply it to that part or replace the part entirely. And that does nothing to help existing designs that do not use DLC coated wear surfaces.
Since this forms In Situ via heat and pressure over 100,000's of cycles (it does take time to form, typically about 500 miles worth of use anywhere that is lubricated by oil and operates in boundary layer lubrication regimes or mixed lubrication regimes), it can be used in any existing car to reduce both wear of the rubbing pairs (aka bearing surfaces like cam lobes, cylinder wall to piston ring contact areas and rod bearings WHEN they drop out of hydrodynamic and enter boundary layer lubrication regime at start up and shut off, particularly on hybrids that see 10x the dropout of a normal engine).
It does not alter your oil's formula either. It simply uses a small amount of Ester base oil as a carrier. IT also works in harmony with the Zinc anti-wear additives that are in all motor oils and are increasingly being reduced due to EPA restrictions (they are toxic to biological organisms and on older worn engines that burn oil, the zinc binds to the catalyst and causes higher emissions, hence why they keep reducing it). Although I'd argue that because zinc is an anti-wear additive, higher levels of zinc (aka ZDDP) reduce wear which keeps rings sealing better and for longer consequently reducing the amount of oil that gets past the oil control rings in the first place...but I digress.
When the opportunity presents itself, I try to share these technologies. They may or may not ever become a standard due to the lengthy wear in process (500 miles approx.) and cost, but they definitely have value to anyone who knows how and where to apply them.
In regards to Hydrogenated DLC coatings, in particular I'm referencing TriboTEX (Synthetic Magnesium Silicate Hydroxide) which has undergone extensive R&D (SBIR phase 1 and 2, multiple ASTM tests, Wedeven Hypoid Gear test etc.). There are engine and gearbox formulations now available. You'd be surprise at how much power you can pick up by reducing friction losses all without messing with gear, ECU calibrations, intakes etc.
The research data is attached to this post. I have more that what's below, but that's a good start. Researching Tribology isn't for everyone (yes, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and I"m an auto enthusiast, so I apply my ability to learn to other fields as well).
This is not an oil additive. It is a DLC coating that forms in operation and reaches super lubricity levels. Typically lasts around 40k miles depending on application in ICE's (Internal Combustion Engines) and round 80k miles in automatic transaxles or manual gearboxes. The wear rates of the DLC coatings are lower when used with organic molybdenum compounds (developed by Infinium in 2009) aka MoDTC (NOT MOS2).
What is so great about TriboTEX is you don't need to buy a brand new car that has a factory applied DLC coating during the production process. Also vapor deposited DLC coatings are a one time use, so once they wear off the parts inside the engine, you would need to take the engine apart and re-apply it to that part or replace the part entirely. And that does nothing to help existing designs that do not use DLC coated wear surfaces.
Since this forms In Situ via heat and pressure over 100,000's of cycles (it does take time to form, typically about 500 miles worth of use anywhere that is lubricated by oil and operates in boundary layer lubrication regimes or mixed lubrication regimes), it can be used in any existing car to reduce both wear of the rubbing pairs (aka bearing surfaces like cam lobes, cylinder wall to piston ring contact areas and rod bearings WHEN they drop out of hydrodynamic and enter boundary layer lubrication regime at start up and shut off, particularly on hybrids that see 10x the dropout of a normal engine).
It does not alter your oil's formula either. It simply uses a small amount of Ester base oil as a carrier. IT also works in harmony with the Zinc anti-wear additives that are in all motor oils and are increasingly being reduced due to EPA restrictions (they are toxic to biological organisms and on older worn engines that burn oil, the zinc binds to the catalyst and causes higher emissions, hence why they keep reducing it). Although I'd argue that because zinc is an anti-wear additive, higher levels of zinc (aka ZDDP) reduce wear which keeps rings sealing better and for longer consequently reducing the amount of oil that gets past the oil control rings in the first place...but I digress.
When the opportunity presents itself, I try to share these technologies. They may or may not ever become a standard due to the lengthy wear in process (500 miles approx.) and cost, but they definitely have value to anyone who knows how and where to apply them.
Attachments
-
TriboTEX_vehicleTesting_v2.0.pdf
-
UNL Baja Team - Engine Testing Report.pdf
-
TriboTEX Wins 2017 Technology Acceleration Challenge Award.pdf
-
TriboTEX_4BallWearTest (ASTM D 4172).pdf
-
TriboTEX_block_on_ring (ASTM G 77).pdf
-
Axle Oil Formulation for Gear Mesh Efficiency (weveden).pdf
-
Operando formation of an ultra-low friction boundary film.pdf
-
EP1462508B1_infiniumMOLYpatent.pdf
-
2020-10-27 10_20_18-18 CX9-200918 UOA (5k Interval).pdf - Adobe Reader.png
Last edited:
BTW my plug about K&N filters / CAI's is primarily due to wear and maintenance. So you get 5 maybe 10 HP on a high power engine from a K&N filter + CAI yet you allow 12x the dust contamination into the combustion chamber...so how much power are you going to loose after 50k miles or 100k miles due to compression loss because there is a direct correlation to piston ring wear vs. particulate concentration?
I"d rather make a few HP less now but make the same power later on. Also K&N's dust capacity is MUCH lower than a paper filter. So they need frequent cleaning and their clogging curve is very exponential (meaning once they fill up they become very retrictive very rapidly). Typically they have only 1/2 to 1/3 of the dust capacity, so instead of 30k intervals for replacement, you should clean a K&N every 10k~15k miles or so to keep it flowing well, otherwise it will flow LESS than a paper filter.
Ever wonder why OE's, even makers of high horsepower track cars (GT350 with the 5.2L Voodoo engine uses a paper conical filter and CAI air box, not a K&N cloth / oil filter) that are street legal typically still use paper filters? The trade-off in long term reliablity and maintenance just isn't worth it for even performance street cars.
Lastly oiled cotton is risky for getting oil on the MAF when you have to clean an re-oil it, which will really mess up engine performance, then you have to remove the MAF and clean it to get proper air flow readings...just not worth the hastle / risks unless it's a track car that only sees a few thousand miles a year under race conditions.
They have a place, but in my opinion there are far better ways to get more power on street cars that operate under very diverse environmental conditions (temperature, altitude, humidity and fuel octane variations, highly loaded vehicle conditions etc.) over decades unlike a dedicated track car (which is where a dyno tune may be appropriate as a track car does not need to run a varying altitudes / humidity and temp changes, varying fuel quality, maintenance variations, cargo variations). That's why modern ECU maps are very complex with thousands of values in the data tables the ECU uses to determine optimal air flow, fuel and timing for a given load condition at a given altitude, humidity level, temperature and fuel octane. Phew, hopefully I've convinced any Mazda owners on there to seek more reliable and long term solutions to increase power train performance via maintenance and more well proven / researched technologies.
Benefits of Hydrogenated DLC Coatings:
1. The coating is what is wearing away, not the surface of the rubbing pairs (aka the bearing surfaces).
2. DLC Coatings have proven to support higher film strength during hydrodynamic lubrication regimes. In essence it allows better adhesion of the oil molecules to the bearing surfaces when the hydrodnamic wedge forms at speed, thus supporting increased load capability.
3. DLC coatings reach super lubricity levels while also reducing wear rates. Zinc or ZDDP is an anti-wear additive, but it does very little to reduction friction losses. Friction and wear are some times, but not always mutually exclusive. Low friction does NOT mean low wear or visa versa. Since hydrogenated DLC coatings are already water bonded, they don't have moisture absorption issues like MOS2, which is why it never found wide spread use in motor oils to reduce friction despite it's excellent low friction properties. In fact when it absorbs moisture, MOS2 becomes abrasive and increases wear! It is used heavily in sealed assemblies like CV axle joints or differentials etc. however because those can be sealed off from moisture exposure.
4. Hydrogenated DLC coatings last significantly longer when used with MoDTC, a newer organic molybdenum compound that is far less toxic and prone to water absorption than MOS2, but provides similar lubricity. MoDTC is used in most modern motor oil formulas to enhanced fuel economy (and very slight increase in power output).
5. They are non-toxic, so any exposure to living organisms, in particular aquatic ones, has no significant side effects.
6. Enhanced fuel economy, when your cruising at a steady speed, due to reaching super lubricity levels, less fuel is required to move the vehicle the same distance. This is mostly beneficial on flat or down hill grades. When going uphill, most of your fuel consumpion is due to moving the mass vertically. So if you do a lot of up-hill diriving you probably will only notice the increased torque output and responsiveness, not fuel economy. But if you do a decent amount of highway driving, you will see small gains.
I"d rather make a few HP less now but make the same power later on. Also K&N's dust capacity is MUCH lower than a paper filter. So they need frequent cleaning and their clogging curve is very exponential (meaning once they fill up they become very retrictive very rapidly). Typically they have only 1/2 to 1/3 of the dust capacity, so instead of 30k intervals for replacement, you should clean a K&N every 10k~15k miles or so to keep it flowing well, otherwise it will flow LESS than a paper filter.
Ever wonder why OE's, even makers of high horsepower track cars (GT350 with the 5.2L Voodoo engine uses a paper conical filter and CAI air box, not a K&N cloth / oil filter) that are street legal typically still use paper filters? The trade-off in long term reliablity and maintenance just isn't worth it for even performance street cars.
Lastly oiled cotton is risky for getting oil on the MAF when you have to clean an re-oil it, which will really mess up engine performance, then you have to remove the MAF and clean it to get proper air flow readings...just not worth the hastle / risks unless it's a track car that only sees a few thousand miles a year under race conditions.
They have a place, but in my opinion there are far better ways to get more power on street cars that operate under very diverse environmental conditions (temperature, altitude, humidity and fuel octane variations, highly loaded vehicle conditions etc.) over decades unlike a dedicated track car (which is where a dyno tune may be appropriate as a track car does not need to run a varying altitudes / humidity and temp changes, varying fuel quality, maintenance variations, cargo variations). That's why modern ECU maps are very complex with thousands of values in the data tables the ECU uses to determine optimal air flow, fuel and timing for a given load condition at a given altitude, humidity level, temperature and fuel octane. Phew, hopefully I've convinced any Mazda owners on there to seek more reliable and long term solutions to increase power train performance via maintenance and more well proven / researched technologies.
Benefits of Hydrogenated DLC Coatings:
1. The coating is what is wearing away, not the surface of the rubbing pairs (aka the bearing surfaces).
2. DLC Coatings have proven to support higher film strength during hydrodynamic lubrication regimes. In essence it allows better adhesion of the oil molecules to the bearing surfaces when the hydrodnamic wedge forms at speed, thus supporting increased load capability.
3. DLC coatings reach super lubricity levels while also reducing wear rates. Zinc or ZDDP is an anti-wear additive, but it does very little to reduction friction losses. Friction and wear are some times, but not always mutually exclusive. Low friction does NOT mean low wear or visa versa. Since hydrogenated DLC coatings are already water bonded, they don't have moisture absorption issues like MOS2, which is why it never found wide spread use in motor oils to reduce friction despite it's excellent low friction properties. In fact when it absorbs moisture, MOS2 becomes abrasive and increases wear! It is used heavily in sealed assemblies like CV axle joints or differentials etc. however because those can be sealed off from moisture exposure.
4. Hydrogenated DLC coatings last significantly longer when used with MoDTC, a newer organic molybdenum compound that is far less toxic and prone to water absorption than MOS2, but provides similar lubricity. MoDTC is used in most modern motor oil formulas to enhanced fuel economy (and very slight increase in power output).
5. They are non-toxic, so any exposure to living organisms, in particular aquatic ones, has no significant side effects.
6. Enhanced fuel economy, when your cruising at a steady speed, due to reaching super lubricity levels, less fuel is required to move the vehicle the same distance. This is mostly beneficial on flat or down hill grades. When going uphill, most of your fuel consumpion is due to moving the mass vertically. So if you do a lot of up-hill diriving you probably will only notice the increased torque output and responsiveness, not fuel economy. But if you do a decent amount of highway driving, you will see small gains.
Last edited:
