Crave More Power on your 2.0L? It Might be Your Lucky Day

[GAXIBM]

When you put it in the trunk, you have to have longer and larger battery cables to handle the amperage without dropping the low 12 volts too much. This adds weight and copper cost.

 

[CX-SV]

When you put it in the trunk, you have to have longer and larger battery cables to handle the amperage without dropping the low 12 volts too much. This adds weight and copper cost.

Yes, considerable cost for a small improvement in weight distribution. The trunk location was pre-2006 Miatas.

 

[old-school]

I started driving in the 1970's. The CX-5 2.0L is quicker than over half the cars on the road back then. Both subjectively and in published 0-60mph times. It has quicker 0-60 times than many cars in the day equipped with V-8's. Hard to believe but true.

One skill set that can make a world of difference in the 6MT 2.0L CX-5 is familiarity with the gearing. Being in the right gear for the job at the right time is not always easy for drivers whose skills have become dulled by driving cars with bigger engines but it can make a huge difference. With six gears at your disposal it is sometimes necessary to downshift 2 or even 3 gears at once. And wrapping the little 2.0L mill to nearly 6000 rpm's before shifting will insure you are in the meat of the powerband for the next gear. Don't worry, these are tough engines that are precision balanced. Wrapping them out is not going to hurt them, they are designed to be driven in a sporting manner.

But if you want to be a lazy, non-involved driver, there are engines much better suited to that type of performance. The 2.0L demands more driver skill and involvement than a larger displacement engine but is capable of surprising performance when driven well.

I'd completely disagree here, the skill is dulled by automatic transmissions. Any displacement motor coupled with manual trans telegraphs power band to the driver. I don't care if it's your high winding 2.0L or a thumping old Mopar 426 Hemi. If you are directly hooked up to the motor you know when it's lugging, when it's pulling hard, when it's topped out. If in front of an auto trans the driver no longer has to listen or pay attention to the car. Displacement has nothing to do with it.

Your discussion also illustrates why torque is vastly more useful than hp. Especially if it's moved down the power band in a long stroker such as in the 2.5L or diesels. The sweet spot is wider. High winders must be in the zone or, in the words of the late Gene Berg, "they can't peel the skin off a rotten banana".

 

[V8toilet]

I wouldn't consider the Skyactiv 2.0 a high winding engine in the realm of 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engines even if it's redline is at 6500 RPM. It's torque peaks at 4000 RPM but it also makes most of its torque below that. This isn't a bad thing though as it's needed for a family vehicle with a relatively high curb weight such as the CX5 SUV. I remember that motor chugging along in 6th gear at 40 MPH and it would pull my Sport CX5 up a 5% grade pretty well. The only time that motor felt taxed was when I was at highway speeds climbing big hills or had to pass or merge. The drag created by the CX5 SUV shape would tax that motor in certain situations. In those situations the increased torque of the 2.5 and less noise is very welcome especially on long trips.

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned I just don't see modifying this engine as being worth it. Anything you do to modify this naturally aspirated engine is most likely going to diminish the lower end torque for more higher end torque and make your day to day regular drives less enjoyable because you will be winding the piss out of it to keep up with a Prius and also have tons more noise. Yeah someone will some day figure out a way to add forced induction to this motor but for probably $7,000 and reduced reliability. Who is going to spend $7,000 on a $21,500 baseline SUV with a 2 liter engine designed for a family vehicle? You'd be better off just buying a Ford Ecoboost titanium 2.0 and get a reliable 240 horsepower from the factory with a warranty to back it up or if it were me I'd buy a real sports car with a motor that produces copious amounts of torque.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

stick a v8 in it like this mz3?

http://www.speedcafe.com/2015/02/04/bathurst-bound-mazda-3-v8-breaks-cover/

 

[CX-SV]

I wouldn't consider the Skyactiv 2.0 a high winding engine in the realm of 2.0 liter 4 cylinder engines even if it's redline is at 6500 RPM. It's torque peaks at 4000 RPM but it also makes most of its torque below that. This isn't a bad thing though as it's needed for a family vehicle with a relatively high curb weight such as the CX5 SUV. I remember that motor chugging along in 6th gear at 40 MPH and it would pull my Sport CX5 up a 5% grade pretty well. The only time that motor felt taxed was when I was at highway speeds climbing big hills or had to pass or merge. The drag created by the CX5 SUV shape would tax that motor in certain situations. In those situations the increased torque of the 2.5 and less noise is very welcome especially on long trips.

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned I just don't see modifying this engine as being worth it. Anything you do to modify this naturally aspirated engine is most likely going to diminish the lower end torque for more higher end torque and make your day to day regular drives less enjoyable because you will be winding the piss out of it to keep up with a Prius and also have tons more noise. Yeah someone will some day figure out a way to add forced induction to this motor but for probably $7,000 and reduced reliability. Who is going to spend $7,000 on a $21,500 baseline SUV with a 2 liter engine designed for a family vehicle? You'd be better off just buying a Ford Ecoboost titanium 2.0 and get a reliable 240 horsepower from the factory with a warranty to back it up or if it were me I'd buy a real sports car with a motor that produces copious amounts of torque.

Agreed, the 2.0 with its current SUV tune would hardly be my first choice for a sporty free reving engine for a sports car.

 

[djsiva]

Well, 2.5 performance is improved with tuning, I'm not sure how much from the 2.0L. I know of one guy with a 2.0 (sky) mazda 3 running a low boost (5psi think) electric powered turbocharger with success. Based on testing between the owner/tuner , that pretty much seems to be the safe cap right now due to fuel delivery.

There's a friend mine who does amazing performance work so I hit him up the other day on the possibility of boost in my 2.5. He said the only way to safely boost the high compression engine is with the use of E85. This puts it out for me as there aren't enough E85 stations around, plus this is my daily driver. It can also be done with lower compression pistons, but nobody will ever make them for our cars. We can't even get rear camber arms made.

 

[MikeM.]

Any displacement motor coupled with manual trans telegraphs power band to the driver. I don't care if it's your high winding 2.0L or a thumping old Mopar 426 Hemi.

My first seven cars were manual shift. Maybe you missed it but I was responding to a MT owner and specifically made my comments specific to the 2.0L MT. And excuse my French, but you're talking out your butt if you think there is any difference to the way a direct coupled AT like the CX-5 uses "telegraphs power band to the driver" compared to any manual tranny. They are both direct coupled using clutches so they will "telegraph the power band to the driver" in exactly the same manner. I will agree that old school AT slush boxes removed this direct connection with the engine from the driver.


What I was referring to as dulling a driver's skill set was driving a car with a large engine, powerful enough and with such a broad torque range, that gearing becomes secondary. A car like the CX-5 2.0L MT does not perform very well unless the gears are used in a suitable manner for the task on hand.

If you are directly hooked up to the motor you know when it's lugging, when it's pulling hard, when it's topped out.

Modern AT's with lock-up function DO directly hook you up to the motor. Even Formula 1 cars use paddle shifted sequential transmissions (no clutch pedal).

If in front of an auto trans the driver no longer has to listen or pay attention to the car. Displacement has nothing to do with it.

I'm sure a NHRA world champion drag racer running a Powerglide AT would disagree.

Your discussion also illustrates why torque is vastly more useful than hp. Especially if it's moved down the power band in a long stroker such as in the 2.5L or diesels. The sweet spot is wider. High winders must be in the zone or, in the words of the late Gene Berg, "they can't peel the skin off a rotten banana".

Torque is one of the most over-rated and misunderstood aspects of performance engines.

It matters very little at what RPM your power is produced, what matters is how wide the spread of that power is. A flat torque curve over a large rpm range is more useful than a less flat torque curve over a smaller RPM range. But thanks to gearing options when designing a vehicle or modifying one, it doesn't matter whether that broad spread of power is between 10,000-20,000 rpm's or between 2000 and 4000 rpm's. But if these examples of vastly different engines are even remotely competitive, the peak torque figures of the engine that get's the job done between 2000-4000 rpm's will be 5 times higher than the higher reving engine but might have very similar peak hp figures (and yet they might be roughly equal in competitiveness). Of course in the racing world we have class rules so you probably won't see this kind of disparity of engine styles but it illustrates my point.


The fallacy that torque is more important than peak hp started when hot rudders built engines that made a lot more peak hp but gave up a flat, broad torque curve to achieve the peak hp numbers. But it's not about big peak torque numbers low in the rpm range, it's about having a broad, flat torque curve-the actual rpm range that is used to achieve this is not important to the level of performance achieved. The actual performance is better defined by the average HP made through the broad flat torque peak.

For example, a Formula 1 car might make peak torque at 15,000 rpm's and be able to rev over 20,000 rpm (even if limited by regulations to 18-19,000 rpm).

The 2.0L CX-5 has a very broad, flat torque curve but it doesn't start to get good until about 3,000 rpm up to 6000 rpm with another 500 rpm on top of that for convenience and flexibility with shifting. Still, the area between 1,500 and 3,000 is very useable for everyday driving but this is not the part of the power curve that is used for performance driving. The point I'm making is the torque curve is not necessarily broader if it's lower in the rpm range. My Ducati motorcycles are well known for their broad, flat and very useable/flexible power band. But the good part of the range is 5,500-10,500 for racing purposes.

 

[MikeM.]

It can also be done with lower compression pistons, but nobody will ever make them for our cars.

Lowering the compression (and designing new ignition and fuel maps) certainly could get you more power but what a misguided adventure that would be.

There are much better platforms to start with. The entire design principle of the Skyactiv G engines is to raise compression to maximize efficiency while simultaneously creating an engine that is very useable. If you're going to throw that out the window, why start with a Skyactiv engine?

Actually, the most practical way to increase output is with new fuel/ignition maps that require 92 octane. Essentially a euro-spec CX-5.

 

[V8toilet]

Mazdas Skyactiv family of engines are so highly tuned by Mazda engineers that there just isn't anything left to improve that might yield a decent gain like there used to be in the past. In other words you are not going to bolt on an exhaust or an intake and find 10-15 usable torque or horsepower.

What you guys can do is improve the parts of the vehicle that Mazda did leave plenty of room for improvement. You can lighten or reduce the size of the wheels to reduce polar moment of inertia. You can replace the lead acid battery with a much lighter dry cell battery. You can lower the suspension for lower CG. You can remove the spare tire and replace it with an electric pump or repair kit. You can service the brakes more often so that they are in the best condition or as designed. You can put more specific type tires on like performance tires for summer or winter tires for snow and ice. Even simple stuff like not carrying around extra junk in the car or fueling with top tier gas helps. Replacing the air filter with a real Mazda air filter more often makes an impact especially if you driving in dusty conditions or your roads are heavily salted. How about keeping the air in the tires at optimal pressures? The list goes on and on but if you think outside the box you can still find ways to improve acceleration, handling, or fuel efficiency.

 

[CX-SV]

Yes, or you can just wait for CX-3, it will have much better performance with same 2.0L because vehicle is lighter and smaller. I suspect the CX-3 2.0L will even be quicker than CX-5 2.5L.

 

[MikeM.]

Yes, or you can just wait for CX-3, it will have much better performance with same 2.0L because vehicle is lighter and smaller. I suspect the CX-3 2.0L will even be quicker than CX-5 2.5L.

You might be right about that!

Of course there are plenty of ways to make the 2.5L CX-5 faster beyond the very reasonable and sensible suggestions by V8toilet. You could strip out the back seats, remove all the motors for the electric seats and windows (don't forget the sunroof) and get rid of the infotainment center and door speakers. While you're at it, might as well strip off the door panels and remove the four floor mats.

 

[CX-SV]

Of course there are plenty of ways to make the 2.5L CX-5 faster beyond the very reasonable and sensible suggestions by V8toilet. You could strip out the back seats, remove all the motors for the electric seats and windows (don't forget the sunroof) and get rid of the infotainment center and door speakers. While you're at it, might as well strip off the door panels and remove the four floor mats.

Yes or just buy the CX-3 (very likely nicely engineered by Mazda) which is lighter than the CX-5 garage-engineered strippo CX-5, lol. You still get to enjoy moonroof and infotainment too...

 

[V8toilet]

CS-XV, last time I checked the Mazda 3 with the 2.0 was not quicker than a FWD CX5 with the 2.5 so I would guess if the CX3 is of similar weight it would not be any quicker with a 2.0. Last time I drove a Skyactiv Mazda 3 (was a 2012 model retal) it still surprised me by the seat of the pants feel though so it was plenty quick enough to me. Last time I checked the Mazda 6, CX5 2.5, and Mazda 3 were all leaders in acceleration for their classes. Even back in 2012-2013 the CX5 2.0 was not the slowest small SUV class wise.

 

[CX-SV]

CS-XV, last time I checked the Mazda 3 with the 2.0 was not quicker than a FWD CX5 with the 2.5 so I would guess if the CX3 is of similar weight it would not be any quicker with a 2.0. Last time I drove a Skyactiv Mazda 3 (was a 2012 model retal) it still surprised me by the seat of the pants feel though so it was plenty quick enough to me. Last time I checked the Mazda 6, CX5 2.5, and Mazda 3 were all leaders in acceleration for their classes. Even back in 2012-2013 the CX5 2.0 was not the slowest small SUV class wise.

I think I saw some acceleration times (from Australia since they seem to be first to drive and report) for the 2.0L CX-3 and it was slightly quicker than the CX-5 2.5L acceleration times reported in the US. But yes, in short removing hundreds of pounds of weight and improving aero by significantly reducing frontal area pays off nicely, (versus adding 34 horsepower).

 

[hp79]

Or get a MINI F56 that gives flat peak torque starting from 1250rpm. It's amazing what a 3 cylinder 170 lb-ft torque 134hp turbo engine can do. It's really fun car to drive, bursts with a strong pull, and gets good gas mileage too.
Down side is every optional add-ons are way overpriced, and there are reliability issues as everything (even the dash brightness, turn signals, horns) are controlled by the ECU and car is relatively new. There's 12 ECUs for my basic F56, and also comes with bugs that appear once in a while that are not yet resolved.

I was seriously looking at Mazda 3 for the second car after the 2014 CX-5 GT AWD, but I test drove a Mazda 6 and it felt exactly the same as the CX-5 (not that it's boring, but it feels like nothing new). I thought Mazda 3 would be boring too so I went with the MINI. CX-5 feels like I'm riding in a very comfortable truck now, lol.

Back to topic, I wouldn't try to boost the engine performance as everyone else said already.

 

[duffsurly]

its not slow if you know how to shift properly, i have found many ways to get this SUV to move quite fast with correct shifting.

 

[ourlee]

Please stop.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Please stop.

1 month old thread bumped, I'd say they stopped already lol

 

[CX-SV]

Please shift properly, (like that's the solution).