Mazda5 engines

[markuszoom5]

So basically reading online that the MZ5 engine is old from 2001 and it ranges from 1.8L to 2.5L, so the new MZ5 has a couple HP more but all else is the same. What was the point? For example I had a 2006 Jetta with 150 HP 2.5l 5 cylinder and then in 2 years the 2006 had 170 HP to the same engine. How come mazda could not add 40 more HP?

 

[Orangutan]

Well, yes and no. The engines used in the Mazda5 are all part of the MZR L-series family, which shares its basic architecture with the Ford Duratec family. Displacements do range from 1.8 to 2.5 liters and date back to 2001. Mazda is a small company and can't afford the R&D budget of much larger companies that produce newer engines and engine families on a more frequent basis. Mazda got the MZR series by being partially owned by Ford, which helped fund the development of the four-cylinder family. All motors can be tuned to different powers for different purposes, and the way you measure the power has wiggle-room built into it. You'll notice that the SAE changed the way they allow manufacturers to rate horsepower and torque back in 2005, so that starting for 2006 models horsepower ratings sometimes fell. This also means it's difficult to compare post-2006 ratings with pre-2006 ratings too closely. The Duratec version of the 2.5 makes over 170 horsepower while the MZR2.5 in the gen2 Mazda6 makes 170 horsepower even, with 167 ft-lbs of torque. The same engine in the Mazda3 makes 167 hp, less than the Mazda6, but 168 ft-lbs of torque, more than the Mazda6. Not only could the tune be different, but the placement of the internal components, including the intake and exhaust tracts, will affect the power rating. The MZR2.5 in the CX-7 seems to be in different state of tune, making 161 hp and 161 ft-lbs of torque. I'm assuming this is to produce more low-end torque for the heavier weight and larger size of the CX-7 and to better appeal to drivers of similar vehicles in that segment. The MZR2.5 in the Mazda5, however, is rated for 157hp and 163 ft-lbs of torque. Given the similarities between the Mazda3 and Mazda5, and that the gen2 Mazda5 is really still based on the gen1 Mazda3, I would chalk up most of the power difference (167 vs 157 and 168 vs 163) to internal plumbing.

Why not "40 more HP"? Because it would require significant investment in an engine series Mazda didn't want to continue investing in, and couldn't afford to. Look at the Sky-G series. Even the brand new 2.5SG makes 185ish horsepower, only 15 more than the MZR's top tune.

 

[markuszoom5]

But all in all I feel that the MZ5 2.3L engine is pretty quiet in city driving and also decent on the highway. It might not be the most powerful, but it seems to be a reliable engine, and low stressed.

 

[Silentnoise713]

Manufacturers have to constantly improve or they will fall behind to competition. Any given engine will have limitations and continuously borig it out will net more HP in trade of for durability and efficiency, unless they are pure improvements. As mentioned Mazda is a very small shop. If they did not invest and roll out the Sky series engines, they would be in a lot of trouble.

Another point to keep in mind is tuning per car specifications. The same 2.5 in the Mz6 makes more peak power. The Mz5's 2.5 is detuned to change the power curve so it is more usable to move the heafty weight. Peak is not the end all.

 

[DougNuts]

Horsepower comes from a few sources, but displacement and RPM are the greatest factors. I don't think the MZR has a main bearing size conducive to high RPMs.

When the same engine is built for different power/torque, it is usually the camshaft that dictates the powerband.

 

[cburrell]

The MZR family of motors are good tough reliable motors, and no they aren't as efficient as the sky activ or other direct injection engines, but they aren't archaic either. That is why Ford is still manufacturing them and putting turbo's on them and rebadging them as eco-boost. Actually Ford is the only manufacturer that is still producing MZR motors, and after 2016 when Mazda has phased the MZR out of the entire lineup, Ford will be the only company in the world that will still be using MZR's as the main engines in their cars. So, regardless of what people say, the MZR is far from archaic and the direct injection turbocharged MZR which Mazda developed in 2007 for the speed 3 has become the foundation for all of Ford's eco-boost four cylinders.

 

[DougNuts]

That is why Ford is still manufacturing them and putting turbo's on them and rebadging them as eco-boost.

I assume you know this, but for those who don't, the Eco-boost engines aren't just turbocharged MZR engines, they have been gone through in the same manner that Mazda's 2.0 was gone through and tweaked to turn it into the skyactive direct injection engine.

 

[cburrell]

Well kind of, but if you want to be technical, the Mazda direct injection, turbocharged L3-VDT which they introduced in 2006 for the Speed 6 and then the Speed 3, with a lot of money for R&D from Ford, became the platform and basis for Ford's eco-boost inline 4's. Yes, Ford did design their own manifold and changed the engine control systems, but the platform is the MZR L3-VDT. This is not the case with the Skyactiv-G family of motors. Mazda designed and developed the Skyactiv-g 2.0 from the ground up. It is a new engine and platform which has nothing in common with the MZR family of motors. So, yes Ford did tweak the L3-VDT for their eco-boost variant, but the design and platform is the MZR L3-VDT. So, Ford did just rebadge a different variant of an MZR motor, but in no way did they start from the ground up and engineer and design a brand new engine platform like Mazda with Skyactiv.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/24/is-ford-2-0-liter-ecoboost-four-mazdaspeed3-four-not-really/
http://www.ecoboostforums.org/ford-...-of-direct-injection-lessons-already-learned/

 

[DougNuts]

but if you want to be technical.............. Ford did just rebadge a different variant of an MZR motor, but in no way did they start from the ground up and engineer and design a brand new engine platform like Mazda with Skyactiv.

I didn't disagree with you at all, except for my definition of re-badge is apparently much different than yours. If Ford carried over the MZR engine block and changed basically everything else (from your link), that is a re-designed engine, IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_engineering

Where I was apparently wrong is that I didn't realize that the previous non-DI 2.0 was a MZR engine, I thought it was a different family and served as the basis for the DI-2.0.

 

[Robotazky]

Knowing I'll be called a troll for it, I'm going to just throw it out anyway, for the record, that the MS3 engine is a grenade waiting to go off. Bottom five engines of all time when it's all said and done, regardless of anything else that can be said about it. Guaranteed. 99.9% of the gearhead world couldn't care less about Mazda, so it won't make any lists for being anything good or bad, but on my hypothetical list it's a major dud. I hope to hell the Eco-boost is not anything like that engine.

 

[Orangutan]

Why do you say it's a grenade?

 

[DougNuts]

Why do you say it's a grenade?

They had a major fueling issue that caused a lot of them to blow up from running lean.

https://cobbtuning.zendesk.com/entries/22345351-Mazda-DISI-High-Pressure-Fuel-Pump

 

[Robotazky]

Why do you say it's a grenade?

For a number of reasons. One, the turbos blow like they're a $50 disposable part. Two, they sometimes throw rods through the blocks. Three, they smoke, smell like unburnt gas, and occasionally burn a lot of oil, leaving the back covered in soot. Four, they break motor mounts a lot.

My opinion is that these factors, a horrid redline of what, maybe 5,750 RPMS, and less than 300 HP make it a grenade. There's just nothing to write home about other than concern. It's a grenade figuratively and literally.

 

[cburrell]

DougNuts, I agree that Ford redesigned it, but the architecture is a MZR motor which still has many components that are shared with the L3-VDT, that is all I was trying to convey. I have read about some of the early problems with the LF-VDT MZR in the Speed6 and the Speed3, but I haven't heard much about if it affected the same engine which was detuned and re-mapped for the CX-7. But, I did find this article interesting, about a Ford recall on their ecoboost 4's because they can catch on fire, that just proves that the eco-boost inline 4's still have many similarities with the MZR's that had the same problem. Also found an article by CR interesting where they said that small turbo-charged 4's don't deliver on the mpg's they promise, which makes me even more glad that Mazda didn't go the Ford route, as it may be proving to be a big money pit for Ford. Seems Mazda knows this first hand with the Speed 3 and that is why Mazda was so stubborn in not turbo charging their new generation of engines.

side note: kind of funny how in the re-call article it mentions that Toyota has the third most recalls since 2009 with 68, behind Ford and Chevy, yet this is hardly ever reported on, and miraculously Toyota is unscathed by this in the media while Ford and Chevy are blasted for it, CR is real bad about doing this. The auto world's media is still propping up toyota's reliability even though the evidence is showing the contrary. Makes you wonder if some Toyota money isn't floating around the offices of the magazines and car review companies in order to ensure there is no bad publicity.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2012/12/03/ford-fusion-escape-recall-engine-fires/1743203/
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims.html