Torque as measured by lb-ft per liter on both engines are very similar. But the torque peaks (in RPM) between the two are very different. It appears the 2.0 (CX-5, not sure about the Miata) is tuned at the factory for more top end power with a sacrifice in low end torque curve. If a tune on the 2.5 is designed to maintain the same torque curve then all is well.
Are there compelling performance mods for the 2.5??
- Thread starter davefr
- Start date
I would say the factory tunes are conservative (and for a good reason) but I wouldn't call them "extremely conservative". Companies like Honda, Toyota, Ford, Mazda, etc. all have similar offerings and while they don't compete solely based upon engine performance (thankfully), engine performance is important to all of them. And leaving performance on the table without a good reason reduces sales. That said, they do leave some on the table but not excessively and not without a reason.
The actual figure projected was 41 HP but let's not nit-pick. No, I don't believe 41 more horsepower is possible with the current 2.5L with software/exhaust/91 octane.
Agreed. No one has denied that if you're willing to pay the extra to fill with 91 octane and pay for tunes to suit that there are some HP gains to be had. But 41 HP is unrealistic.
There are potentially safe gains to be had for those willing to run premium. But not 41 HP worth. As far as damaging gains, who would want that? Really?
Data is often manipulated, this is a fact. Even major car companies are caught manipulating their EPA MPG results. This happens across industries, in political polls, on peoples taxes, etc, etc. etc.
Of course every company doesn't lie and I never said they did. Where does this nonsense come from? Please quote me if you're going to make wild and outrageous claims that I have said every company lies.
Oh, really? By whom?
To my knowledge, no company has claimed to make 225hp on a stock Skyactiv 2.5L simply by adding a different exhaust, 91 octane fuel and different tunes. No one has claimed that and I'm not accusing anyone of saying they did. Maybe you need to review this part of the discussion to see how it began. Although I admit it's not rare for the numbers to be fudged in the personal tuning industry, this discussion is about how big the potential gains are, not whether someone fudged the 225 HP figure. Have you seen someone claim this has already been measured with 225 HP? I'm not debating that small gains are possible, only whether 225hp is realistic. And it's not. And no one seems to be addressing the actual substance of this (whether 225 HP is realistic with just tune, exhaust and 91 octane). That's a crazy number and my original comment in this thread was that pdlpshr is dreaming if he thinks that number is realistic in this context.
What? You don't believe tunes are subject to the laws of physics?
True. But this makes it even more unlikely to net a 41 HP gain because the various losses between the crankshaft and dyno rollers are roughly proportional to the power measured. So, if your talking a gain of 41 HP to the rear wheels, the engine would have to have a gain of roughly 15% more, or 47-48 HP measured at the crank. And that's not going to happen either. All I'm saying is these are extremely unrealistic expectations for the 2.5L engine. I'm not sure why so many seem to think it's completely doable in such a simple manner.
I'll just be blunt and say it, it looks like V8Toilet is the only other one here who has weighed in who knows what he's talking about.
Last edited:
I'm troubled by your use of the word "tuned" in this context. We have been speaking of "tunes" as software. There is no need to compromise the performance of the lower rpm's to gain in the higher rpm's (or vice versa) in the tune. The rpm ranges are tuned separately from each other and do not interact in any significant manner. It's the shapes of the intake and exhaust manifold/headers, the size and geometry of the valves and combustion chamber that determine these characteristics, not the tune. The tune is developed to work with the natural breathing of any engine and it's inherent resonances, etc., not to tune one range optimally while sacrificing another range.
I was thinking along the line of physical attributes and not the software. At first glance the 2.0 is more designed for higher top end power than the 2.5. I'll be happy with a midrange increase on the 2.5. Not that the 2.5 is slow by my 2.5 is probably slower than most (I live at 6,000 feet)
I hope you're not fueling with that gawd-awful 85 Octane crap they sell around your parts! Did your dealer deliver the vehicle with a full tank of that s***? Because the CX-5 knows what the air density is and will advance timing and probably modify valve timings to suit. If you have lower than expected octane it's going to reduce performance. And yes, you will still be down on power due to the reduced air density but you don't want the double-whammy of altitude hit and the ECU needing to dial things back due to knock.
Last edited:
I'm still on my first tank. I doubt the dealer put anything in other than 85 octane. My neighbor told me the 85 octane should perform like 87 octane at this altitude. Is this not correct? What do you guys use? Costco and Sam's only have 85 or 91, and there's a huge price difference between the two.
Please go to this thread to discuss octane at high altitude. Threads tend to go very off topic on this forum!
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123832501-Benefits-of-High-Octane-at-High-Altitude
Not correct. If you read nothing further on this matter, at least read this abstract of a professional study done by the Society of Automotive Engineers: http://papers.sae.org/872160/ (you can read more detail without paying $25 for the full article by clicking on the "preview" on the right).
Here is an excerpt (keep in mind this is from 1987 and it applies much more to Skyactiv engines with their variable valve timing than the mid-1980's fuel injected cars they used for their study):
You can blend them as long as you are aware that the octane will generally not rise in the exact proportion you might expect from doing the basic math. Just err on the high side and you should be fine. Before I would do that I would see if you can find 87 octane in your area for about the same price of your Costco cocktail blend.
Compelling performance mod's you say...how about a factory turbo 2.5L Skyactiv? Who says a turbo is a bad idea...not Mazda!
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/2017-mazda-cx-9-spied-wearing-psychedelic-camouflage-98007.html
or
http://www.leftlanenews.com/spied-2017-mazda-cx9-89350.html
and
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/08/11/mazda-cx9-spy-shots/
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/2017-mazda-cx-9-spied-wearing-psychedelic-camouflage-98007.html
or
http://www.leftlanenews.com/spied-2017-mazda-cx9-89350.html
and
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/08/11/mazda-cx9-spy-shots/
Last edited:
BigBuckNasty1
Member
- :
- Mazda CX-5 GT 2015
That would open things up a bit
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
Yea, one of those articles mentions 275+ hp, ovtuned states approximately 230+hp to the wheels with 4.5psi on a 2.0 and around 300 with a bit more psi. Of course their still in testing and a kit isn't expected out until 2016.
I'm pretty sure Mazda will increase the bearing area on each end of the rods for the 275 HP turbo versions for durability reasons. You could definitely put a turbo on a non-turbo motor and get away for it, the only question is, for how long. Skyactiv engines were designed with efficiency in mind and so bearing areas were reduced to reduce parasitic loses. There is a margin of safety built in but I don't think I would want to reduce it much unless the motor was for race/competition purposes. I just don't have the time to have it out of service unexpectedly.
The Great NY
Member
- :
- 2004 Mazda Atenza(6)
On the Skyactiv, a lot of the gains to be had don't just come from the god awful Open loop fueling. From my experience with tuning the Skys a lot of the more substantial gains have been had by properly manipulating the VVT system.
The normal mechanical limitations that a non VVT engine would have can be exploited far more with the VVT tables and shift around where the torque and power is.
Fact is, from looking a dozens of factory Sky files. The Factory tune is highly conservative in terms of a performance standpoint. Trade off of focusing on mostly fuel efficiency over increased power. But even with adding more focus on power fuel efficiency can be increased a bit due to the other factory focus of calibrating the vehicle for longevity. Not to say a proper tune will not keep that longevity.
Another thing about the Sky is the timing. Ignition timing strategy is a bit all over the place. And simply "smoothing" out the timing tables show an increase in response and general power output.
Fact is for the price being charged by myself and the few other tuners offering services for these vehicles. It's 100% worth having a tune updated even in stock/no modification form. Yes of course mods increase power production potential and availability. But if someone had a stock car and came to me to calibrate it.they would leave a very happy customer.
Just remember as well. That the factory calibration is made so general as to be used on all cars without tailoring it. So there is a buffer. And the factory tune is good for that. But we all know every single engine is not the same so to speak. So a tailored calibration can be a benefit.
I have looked at factory calibration logs from bone stock cars. And. The logs were proof that the calibration was not the best. I'm not here selling black magic. Just here letting you all know. Tunes work. And not just because I'm a tuner. But because it's a fact.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
The normal mechanical limitations that a non VVT engine would have can be exploited far more with the VVT tables and shift around where the torque and power is.
Fact is, from looking a dozens of factory Sky files. The Factory tune is highly conservative in terms of a performance standpoint. Trade off of focusing on mostly fuel efficiency over increased power. But even with adding more focus on power fuel efficiency can be increased a bit due to the other factory focus of calibrating the vehicle for longevity. Not to say a proper tune will not keep that longevity.
Another thing about the Sky is the timing. Ignition timing strategy is a bit all over the place. And simply "smoothing" out the timing tables show an increase in response and general power output.
Fact is for the price being charged by myself and the few other tuners offering services for these vehicles. It's 100% worth having a tune updated even in stock/no modification form. Yes of course mods increase power production potential and availability. But if someone had a stock car and came to me to calibrate it.they would leave a very happy customer.
Just remember as well. That the factory calibration is made so general as to be used on all cars without tailoring it. So there is a buffer. And the factory tune is good for that. But we all know every single engine is not the same so to speak. So a tailored calibration can be a benefit.
I have looked at factory calibration logs from bone stock cars. And. The logs were proof that the calibration was not the best. I'm not here selling black magic. Just here letting you all know. Tunes work. And not just because I'm a tuner. But because it's a fact.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
The Great NY,
I think most here want to totally believe you but without much more than your words I think most will remain skeptical on the sidelines and unwilling to risk breaking their Skyactiv engine, which I can only guess is a $10,000 replacement part. I can only hope that you are completely right and that after the guinea pigs have put their necks out and some time passes by that you can reap the rewards for your efforts. In the mean time I am completely happy with the performance of my 2.5 stock and I put my trust only in Mazdas engineering.
If the time comes when I should feel the need for a more performance oriented vehicle than I will just sell my CX5 and purchase a vehicle designed from the ground up with the whole sum of its parts designed for such performance like a future Mazda Speed vehicle.
Good luck!
I think most here want to totally believe you but without much more than your words I think most will remain skeptical on the sidelines and unwilling to risk breaking their Skyactiv engine, which I can only guess is a $10,000 replacement part. I can only hope that you are completely right and that after the guinea pigs have put their necks out and some time passes by that you can reap the rewards for your efforts. In the mean time I am completely happy with the performance of my 2.5 stock and I put my trust only in Mazdas engineering.
If the time comes when I should feel the need for a more performance oriented vehicle than I will just sell my CX5 and purchase a vehicle designed from the ground up with the whole sum of its parts designed for such performance like a future Mazda Speed vehicle.
Good luck!
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
The motor is tunable of course, however I haven't come across feedback on skya tunes from twistedtunes. What i know is that epifan (mazda edit creator) wants ovtune to share their maps and tables (ie their hard work) with other mazdaedit tuners. That makes me weary in of itself.
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
Also aren't you supposed to have a "vendor" status on here if you trying to sell a ($500) product to multiple people? I donated $40 and I'm not selling anything l0l.
The Great NY
Member
- :
- 2004 Mazda Atenza(6)
i completely understand your view. and not knocking you. Not everyone wants more performance out of their vehicle. I understand that the performance crowd has been getting thinner and thinner lately. My posts are simply to let people know that contrary to what ever theories they have for their posts. Tuning (Proper tuning) does in fact work and benefits the vehicle as well as the owner.
As for getting a vehicle more performance oriented, by all means that is the common thing that makes complete sense. The CX-5 was not meant to be a rocketship. Can it? of course with the right stuff and person behind the build. But thats not for everyone. What these Calibrations do, is enhance the Zoom-Zoom and address some driviability concerns that have been noted by consumers, as well as myself and other tuners seeing issues in the factory programming. They arent going to make a street beast. but more potent than off the lot and more enjoyable while retaining all the mazda advertised features, yes indeed.
I personally can't make people logon and post feedback. so that i can understand. Its customers choice whether or not they spend time on forums and etc. I'm here because i always have been, lol. Point blank period. All that matters to me is customer satisfaction when its all said and done. I barely advertise. and just started recently plugging because people tell me too. What i do know is i have just about 15 years experience in building and tuning cars under my belt. and that is more than 85% of the current Mazda tuners out there. But thats neither here nor there. Someone local to me actually just hit me up yesterday about tuning his CX-5. Maybe he will post up afterwards. Saw one of my posts here. Thats proof right there that i don't advertise, lol. He's local and didn't know i did CX-5 vehicles. No worries.
In terms of Epifan, fact is, this software is and always has been OPENSOURCE. which means everything is shared. Or at least it has been with opensource stuff over the last decade. So Epifan isn't asking them for anything that shouldnt have already been shared in the first place. Has nothing to do with what was found or what someone is doing. Sharing is general protocol for opensource in terms of MAP definitions. Hell everything i have found that was not there in Mazdaedit, i send to Epifan, to add. That way everyone has it. Why? because i dont care who has the MAP Definitions, thats not what makes the tune. You still have to know how to tune a car to properly use said MAPS. You have to know what makes power, what doesnt, and so on and so forth. Tune File sharing is never really shared, but MAP Defs have always been shared in opensource. So on that. Epifan is not asking for anything out of the ordinary from anyone using Mazdedit. Fact is, without Epifans software, Mazdaedit would not exist. So in my eyes, its only right to share back. But thats just me. Im not in the community for money. as i have proven since being a part of the Mazda community for over a decade.
don't know the rules anymore for vendor status. honestly, havent looked for em in years because of a couple reasons. One is the cost. I've run forums and know what it costs to run a forum. And some of the stuff people charge for vendors are outrageous, lol.
Question for you, if my name wasn't attached to Twisted Tuning, and i was just here posting as me saying hey i can tune your car if you need help. Would you still be questioning me about a vendor status? Or is it mainly because i also have a business name as well? because i mean since 2007 or so i have been here helping people with a number of things. and got paid for it at times. So at what point is it a problem for doing the same thing i been doing since 07 as The Great NY? Just a question....lol.
Last edited:
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
I'm just saying, everyone else who advertises merchandise on here is required to provide a payment fee, it even costs $2 to post on Panjo in the classified. It's only right to help keep the site running $ wise if you are hoping to gain anything out of it, regardless if you sell something or not. That's up to you though I won't be bringing it up anymore.
As far as Mazdaedit being "open source"; if it was actually open source there wouldn't be a licensing fee. I'd have Mazdaedit personal and be blowing my engine up right now if it was, but it's not it's $500 or something and like $1000 for a professional version. That's like saying Microsoft Windows is open source after you paid $200 for it just because anyone can make programs for it. But then they say you can only use it on this PC.... and this version can only do this this and this (Linux based Ubuntu would be considered open source).. that's exactly Mazdaedit and Epifan. And not that this applies to you because I don't know your work, nor have I heard anything bad about you, but honestly calling it open source when it's clearly not, seems like a good way to make it easier for Epipen to make more money by enabling tuners, (who pay over $1000 a pop + the fee he get's from each license sold to a customer) who don't actually have the patience, method and know how to define maps and how they relate to each other. Then they can just mail out work they didn't do and don't understand to a customer. That's how people like Joe from Dynotronics burned a lot of skyactiv (including me) customers who purchased tuning services from him, only to receive non start files, and files that were actually dangerous to the operation of the motor and made it run like s*** literally, or files that worked on someone elses car.
As far as Mazdaedit being "open source"; if it was actually open source there wouldn't be a licensing fee. I'd have Mazdaedit personal and be blowing my engine up right now if it was, but it's not it's $500 or something and like $1000 for a professional version. That's like saying Microsoft Windows is open source after you paid $200 for it just because anyone can make programs for it. But then they say you can only use it on this PC.... and this version can only do this this and this (Linux based Ubuntu would be considered open source).. that's exactly Mazdaedit and Epifan. And not that this applies to you because I don't know your work, nor have I heard anything bad about you, but honestly calling it open source when it's clearly not, seems like a good way to make it easier for Epipen to make more money by enabling tuners, (who pay over $1000 a pop + the fee he get's from each license sold to a customer) who don't actually have the patience, method and know how to define maps and how they relate to each other. Then they can just mail out work they didn't do and don't understand to a customer. That's how people like Joe from Dynotronics burned a lot of skyactiv (including me) customers who purchased tuning services from him, only to receive non start files, and files that were actually dangerous to the operation of the motor and made it run like s*** literally, or files that worked on someone elses car.
