I said I intended to say a few things…

[Unobtanium]

if the I6 turbo was junk, and I will. A turbocharged I6 3.3L engine that makes...280bhp? Mazda. 1990 called. Even they are insulted. The article excuses this saying the 2.5L Turbo in Oz only makes 228bhp...but that's probably because it's just on their 87 octane base map tune. Even if we presume this, as the article does, it's still a 3.3L engine barely cracking 300bhp, and with a turbo to boot. Abysmal.

Mazda's New Turbo Inline-6 Makes Just 280 HP In Australia

We've been waiting a long time for Mazda's six-cylinder engine, and now that it's finally arrived it makes just 280 horsepower from 3.3-liters.

www.thedrive.com

 

[jcrout7992]

I’m holding judgement until I see what the US spec I-6 is producing. Regardless, I’m glad I didn’t wait for Mazda’s I-6.

 

[dunhillmc]

Mazda has said that by going up in displacement, RPMs and NVH are lower. This also lowers emissions and should improve MPG numbers

 

[jal142]

It's tuned a bit more conservatively than the current 2.5T (3.3/2.5*227=~300 horsepower), so it likely has near zero lag and runs out of wind much like the current 2.5T.

Mazda's strategy is really a puzzle. Make a well mannered SUV with excellent dynamics, then saddle it with a low revving engine with diesel-like power delivery. Does not compute.

 

[Unobtanium]

It's tuned a bit more conservatively than the current 2.5T (3.3/2.5*227=~300 horsepower), so it likely has near zero lag and runs out of wind much like the current 2.5T.

Mazda's strategy is really a puzzle. Make a well mannered SUV with excellent dynamics, then saddle it with a low revving engine with diesel-like power delivery. Does not compute.

Couple the added weight in, and if the numbers are "legit", the 2.5T CX5 might actually be quicker, lol!

 

[theblooms]

The 300 I6 (4.9L) in my 78 F100 was good for 101hp. So 280 is pretty damned good as far as I'm concerned!

 

[Muggs1]

if the I6 turbo was junk, and I will. A turbocharged I6 3.3L engine that makes...280bhp? Mazda. 1990 called. Even they are insulted. The article excuses this saying the 2.5L Turbo in Oz only makes 228bhp...but that's probably because it's just on their 87 octane base map tune. Even if we presume this, as the article does, it's still a 3.3L engine barely cracking 300bhp, and with a turbo to boot. Abysmal.

Mazda's New Turbo Inline-6 Makes Just 280 HP In Australia

We've been waiting a long time for Mazda's six-cylinder engine, and now that it's finally arrived it makes just 280 horsepower from 3.3-liters.

www.thedrive.com

You're late to the party buddy. Aren't you looking for a new car ?

It's tuned a bit more conservatively than the current 2.5T (3.3/2.5*227=~300 horsepower), so it likely has near zero lag and runs out of wind much like the current 2.5T.

Mazda's strategy is really a puzzle. Make a well mannered SUV with excellent dynamics, then saddle it with a low revving engine with diesel-like power delivery. Does not compute.

It is not really puzzle at all. They are trying to come up with higher displacements to reduce emissions and tbh why do you want a high revving engine in an SUV which doesn't pretend to be a sporty SUV. Now, I am 100% that NA specs will be at least 300hp for the turbo i6, so my question is, why do you even need more hp in an suv ? The speed limits in NA are laughable and unless you are a bad driver to pretend that you need 300hp to merge into traffic, you don't even need 200hp in an SUV. Yes, everybody wants B58 numbers from Mazda but the reality is that Mazda as we used to know it, it's not there anymore and I don't think it's going to ever come back for the enthusiasts.

Couple the added weight in, and if the numbers are "legit", the 2.5T CX5 might actually be quicker, lol!

 

[Unobtanium]

You're late to the party buddy. Aren't you looking for a new car ?

It is not really puzzle at all. They are trying to come up with higher displacements to reduce emissions and tbh why do you want a high revving engine in an SUV which doesn't pretend to be a sporty SUV. Now, I am 100% that NA specs will be at least 300hp for the turbo i6, so my question is, why do you even need more hp in an suv ? The speed limits in NA are laughable and unless you are a bad driver to pretend that you need 300hp to merge into traffic, you don't even need 200hp in an SUV. Yes, everybody wants B58 numbers from Mazda but the reality is that Mazda as we used to know it, it's not there anymore and I don't think it's going to ever come back for the enthusiasts.

Why do I need anything? I have friends who have lived out of a backpack and hostels. Why a house? Why a car at all? Unless you're a terrible planner, you should be walking to work, or not work at all. You could live at the Salvation Army shelter and not worry a bout bills or anything. Totally viable.

See how absurd that is? But it's also technically true. Just like your statements.

We've gone from "Zoom-zoom" to "but why should it be fun? You don't need to have fun!"

 

[Antoine]

Seems it’s getting a little hot in here…Let’s cool down and keep it civil (and on topic) please, thanks.

 

[Unobtanium]

Back on topic is BMWs b58 getting 21mpg city, 26 highway, in an x3 and putting down nearly 400 awhp stock, with. Nearly half a liter less displacement. Lame Mazda...lame.

 

[theblooms]

>comparing BMW to Mazda

You left out major, major factors. Factor one, price difference. OOF. And factor two: what does BMW stand for? Bring More Wrenches

 

[Muggs1]

Why do I need anything? I have friends who have lived out of a backpack and hostels. Why a house? Why a car at all? Unless you're a terrible planner, you should be walking to work, or not work at all. You could live at the Salvation Army shelter and not worry a bout bills or anything. Totally viable.

See how absurd that is? But it's also technically true. Just like your statements.

We've gone from "Zoom-zoom" to "but why should it be fun? You don't need to have fun!"

You are comparing apples with peaches. Mazda's Zoom-zoom was never really about SUV's. While I don't agree with them and while I do want better engineering from them, the reality is that if I want an SUV I can live with an I6 turbo with 300hp, better suspension tuning and RWD bias, priced well. There are better alternative out there but then again you will probably pay a hell lot more money for that.

Back on topic is BMWs b58 getting 21mpg city, 26 highway, in an x3 and putting down nearly 400 awhp stock, with. Nearly half a liter less displacement. Lame Mazda...lame.

Again, you are comparing Mazda, a small manufacturer with one of the biggest manufacturers in the world and top notch engineering. The resources and development that came over decades from BMW is just not there for Mazda. Here is below how the B58 came out. While we don't have the actual numbers with Mazda first iteration of a 6 cylinder engine I think they will be pretty close to this ones. They cannot afford to screw it up with a first generation combustion engine in an era where everything is trending towards electrification.

And yes, 400WHP from B58 came couple years ago, after years of improving they're engine.

>comparing BMW to Mazda

You left out major, major factors. Factor one, price difference. OOF. And factor two: what does BMW stand for? Bring More Wrenches

This is a funny old joke which tbh I don't think it applies anymore. I mean if you are looking at big 3 technology wise, something is bound to happen at some point. You want better car, better electronics, everything is going to come with a cost.

 

[Unobtanium]

You are comparing apples with peaches. Mazda's Zoom-zoom was never really about SUV's. While I don't agree with them and while I do want better engineering from them, the reality is that if I want an SUV I can live with an I6 turbo with 300hp, better suspension tuning and RWD bias, priced well. There are better alternative out there but then again you will probably pay a hell lot more money for that.

Again, you are comparing Mazda, a small manufacturer with one of the biggest manufacturers in the world and top notch engineering. The resources and development that came over decades from BMW is just not there for Mazda. Here is below how the B58 came out. While we don't have the actual numbers with Mazda first iteration of a 6 cylinder engine I think they will be pretty close to this ones. They cannot afford to screw it up with a first generation combustion engine in an era where everything is trending towards electrification.

View attachment 314093

And yes, 400WHP from B58 came couple years ago, after years of improving they're engine.

This is a funny old joke which tbh I don't think it applies anymore. I mean if you are looking at big 3 technology wise, something is bound to happen at some point. You want better car, better electronics, everything is going to come with a cost.

So in 2015 with about half a liter less, BMW produced an engine making about 40bhp more (rated...) than Mazda in 2023...this is not exactly impressive on Mazda's behalf.

 

[Unobtanium]

>comparing BMW to Mazda

You left out major, major factors. Factor one, price difference. OOF. And factor two: what does BMW stand for? Bring More Wrenches

Why not? Mazda has clearly stated they want to be compared to BMW...so lets give it to 'em!
Wait...nevermind. My info is sortof dated. They are going for boring and droll, now. Well, success?

Mazda Now Benchmarks Toyota Instead Of BMW

Modern-day BMWs are less engaging to drive, the connection between the driver and the machine is almost lost. And Mazda is not happy with that.

www.motor1.com

 

[youri]

I am waiting to see the pricing scheme that mazda use, but i have a gut feeling that the i6 will actually be the base engine. It sounds like they tuned it to be 100% geared towards fuel economy and not at all towards power. Their large platform architecture presentation supports that claim, where they justify the use of the i6 instead of the 4 cylinder for fuel economy purposes.

Fuel economy is important to Mazda, because they don’t have any hybrid or electric vehicles to offset their average fuel economy credits. They are a small company with low margins and likely can’t afford to have high power engine.

For all the other engine comparison, there is also the fact that Mazda resists the urge to make their engine require high octane fuel, so there is also that. And Mazda needs to stay within their price range (even if they trie to move upmarket a bit).

Agreed this is a low power output engine, agreed it is disappointing to some, but it looks 100% on purpose to me.

 

[jal142]

I personally put some doubts on the report from TheDrive.com.
Carscoops reports the same info. Maybe from the same source?

2023 Mazda CX-60 Gets Three Engines In Australia, 3.3L Turbo Straight-6 Makes Only 280HP | Carscoops

The Mazda CX-60 range includes a 3.3-liter petrol straight-six and a 3.3-liter diesel straight-six

www.carscoops.com

What I knew so far...
Mazda will have
3.3L Skyactiv-D
3.0L Skyactiv-X (which always comes with a mini-supercharger).
There is no 3.3L Skyactiv-G/X + turbo that I have heard of.

Adding Turbo to Skyactiv-X is not easy to do.
So far, I have not heard of any breakthru from Mazda on this.
Both can work with a mild-hybrid (48V) for efficiency and low-end torque.

Mazda Details Inline-Six 3.0-Liter Gasoline And 3.3-Liter Diesel Engines

Coinciding with the world premiere of the CX-60, Mazda has released preliminary details about its new straight-six e-Skyactiv X and e-Skyactiv D units.

www.motor1.com

For a Skyactiv-X 3.0L making 280hp, it is on-target by projection.
Their 2.0L Skyactiv-X makes close to 180hp.
By projection... 3.0L makes 270hp.
280hp is an incremental improvement by tuning.

The source is Mazda itself:

Mazda confirms hybrid-only powertrains for first-ever CX-60

Arriving in the first half of 2023, the First-Ever Mazda CX-60 will offer a hybrid-only powertrain line-up.

www.mazda.com.au

 

[Muggs1]

I am waiting to see the pricing scheme that mazda use, but i have a gut feeling that the i6 will actually be the base engine. It sounds like they tuned it to be 100% geared towards fuel economy and not at all towards power. Their large platform architecture presentation supports that claim, where they justify the use of the i6 instead of the 4 cylinder for fuel economy purposes.

Fuel economy is important to Mazda, because they don’t have any hybrid or electric vehicles to offset their average fuel economy credits. They are a small company with low margins and likely can’t afford to have high power engine.

For all the other engine comparison, there is also the fact that Mazda resists the urge to make their engine require high octane fuel, so there is also that. And Mazda needs to stay within their price range (even if they trie to move upmarket a bit).

Agreed this is a low power output engine, agreed it is disappointing to some, but it looks 100% on purpose to me.

As discussed on the other topics, think they will have a hybrid engine as they're base engine. My assumption is the NA 2.5l + a regular hybrid system. Than they will have they're turbo I6 mild hybrid and probably top of the line is the PHEV.