Really interesting facts about Skyactiv technology

It's funny.. a few acquaintances who are not car people though the SkyActiv tag meant it was a hybrid. :-)
 
It has a hybrid vibe to it.

I guess if you consider i-Eloop than yes its sort of got something hybridized. The fact is though everything about Skyactiv Technology is just improving on old technology in the name of efficiency.
 
I guess if you consider i-Eloop than yes its sort of got something hybridized. The fact is though everything about Skyactiv Technology is just improving on old technology in the name of efficiency.

Yeah, that's the gist of it. But let's not forget the other half of the equation that you highlighted in your previous post - FUN! Or to put it in your words, Skyactive technologies "make me feel good and it drives fantastic". And aren't those the most fundamentally desirable qualities in a car?

Mazda could have made the CX-5 even lighter and more efficient by using less steel (high strength or otherwise) which would have increased acceleration as well as city MPG but they decided to make the stiffest chassis in it's class. And that is what allows it to feel so crisp and solid. Without this chassis rigidity all their careful suspension tuning would have been for naught. I'm sure it also contributes to it's superior safety rating. But it's easier for some to focus on more tangible things like HP ratings, remotely operated trunks and the like.

As to the actual word "Skyactiv" as a marketing term, some will attack Mazda for anything. And since it's pretty slim pickings when it comes to significant targets in things that actually matter, their marketing term will be their subject. But I actually like the term and wonder how they came up with one so unique and fresh sounding in a world where marketing terms are recycled repeatedly over the decades. Here are 10 eco-branding terms of 10 manufacturers, lots of fodder for ridicule if so inclined:


  • BlueEfficiency - MERCEDES-BENZ
  • BlueMotion - VOLKSWAGEN
  • Drive-E - VOLVO
  • EarthDreams - HONDA
  • EcoBoost - FORD
  • EcoTec - GM
  • EfficientDynamics - BMW
  • Hybrid Synergy Drive - TOYOTA
  • PureDrive - NISSAN
  • SkyActiv - MAZDA
 
those could also be marketing terms used by Trojan or Pfizer (rolleyes)
 
Yeah, that's the gist of it. But let's not forget the other half of the equation that you highlighted in your previous post - FUN! Or to put it in your words, Skyactive technologies "make me feel good and it drives fantastic". And aren't those the most fundamentally desirable qualities in a car?

Mazda could have made the CX-5 even lighter and more efficient by using less steel (high strength or otherwise) which would have increased acceleration as well as city MPG but they decided to make the stiffest chassis in it's class. And that is what allows it to feel so crisp and solid. Without this chassis rigidity all their careful suspension tuning would have been for naught. I'm sure it also contributes to it's superior safety rating. But it's easier for some to focus on more tangible things like HP ratings, remotely operated trunks and the like.

As to the actual word "Skyactiv" as a marketing term, some will attack Mazda for anything. And since it's pretty slim pickings when it comes to significant targets in things that actually matter, their marketing term will be their subject. But I actually like the term and wonder how they came up with one so unique and fresh sounding in a world where marketing terms are recycled repeatedly over the decades. Here are 10 eco-branding terms of 10 manufacturers, lots of fodder for ridicule if so inclined:


  • BlueEfficiency - MERCEDES-BENZ
  • BlueMotion - VOLKSWAGEN
  • Drive-E - VOLVO
  • EarthDreams - HONDA
  • EcoBoost - FORD
  • EcoTec - GM
  • EfficientDynamics - BMW
  • Hybrid Synergy Drive - TOYOTA
  • PureDrive - NISSAN
  • SkyActiv - MAZDA
Lets not forget that steel is cheap, while magnesium and AlLi and Carbon Fiber...are not. Mazda could have shaved probably 500# off the CX-5...and it would have cost $120K, lol
 
Yep. The term itself is meaningless. But it would have been an immense challenge to simplify the ideas to a few words potential buyers could understand.
 
Yep. The term itself is meaningless. But it would have been an immense challenge to simplify the ideas to a few words potential buyers could understand.

Lighter, more rigid car body with an engine that runs "hotter" because the "hotter" a combustion engine runs, the less energy is wasted, along with being able to shove more air into the cylinders which gives it more power even though it's a smaller motor.
 
Lighter, more rigid car body with an engine that runs "hotter" because the "hotter" a combustion engine runs, the less energy is wasted, along with being able to shove more air into the cylinders which gives it more power even though it's a smaller motor.
Sounds good. It also means more gains can be had at lower boost levels.
 
To be fair, I think some of the Skyactiv stuff is " catch-up" since back in 2011, Mazdas were infamous for poor fuel efficiency. But they've gone beyond the average with some of the Skyactiv tech. I drove a 2013 Mercedes 350 wagon on the weekend. Definitely quieter engine and more powerful than the CX-5, but it didn't ride any better, and I didn't like the handling as much. I don't mind engine noise while accelerating.
 
Back