When it was new 9.2 from 0-100km / h after 20,000km 8.4 seconds. It's just that it's my manual transmission, at the start I release the clutch at 3900 rpm, the second gear goes over 100 km / h The truth is he is not a runner, he drives very nicely and there is no high excise duty due to Co2 8.9 liters is not true, the average consumption is 6.2 l / 100km
Full power mean like adding 20% power after 5000km? It is impossible and at best the different is only 5% or lesser. So don't expect too much different on it
I think a lot of people forget that the SkyActiv-X was designed to reach a frankly awesome 44% thermal efficiency. Considering the average engine is somewhere between 25% for a really cheap vehicle of 10 years ago, and maybe 30% for a more modern vehicle, I'd say approaching 35% in a car as freaking advanced as the Koenigsegg Regera (also a hybrid btw so that fudges some things), 44% still blows my mind. That's approaching half of all the fuel's energy being converted into horsepower.
It means nothing if you’re paying a good deal more to put in premium fuel in this car for it to be even slower than the base 2.0L engine model on 91 RON that’s nearly $15k cheaper. Not to mention save a few thousand and get the more powerful 2.5L that also runs on 91 RON and outperforms both other engines.
@@User-cb4jm i dont think skyactiv-x engine requires premium fuel and it's not slower than the base 2.0l engine. I've seen better 0-100 times on youtube. 8.4s is the best time I've seen.
I have the X186... and equipped the car with areo package, bigger whels and more stuff.... I get on avg 7,4l/100km... if I didn't put everything on I would get 7l/100km and it's great...
A broken into skyactiv-x automatic uses around 5.8 l per 100 km if driven at 110 kmh. Consumtion lower if driving slower. The manual is slightly more fuel efficient. It has pretty good torque aswell. I dont find mine that slow, and ive done 20000 KM in mine. I am very happy with my purchase. But if your fuel prices are low, like in Australia, USA, Canada, then the 2.5 version might be more bang for your buck unless you drive a lot to make up for the increased cost of the X model.
5.8 at 110kmh? That is shockingly bad for cruise economy for a supposed 'next generation' fuel efficient petrol engine. Terrible cars from 10 years ago are able to get 5-6l/100km at 110.
Im struggling to see what the advantage of this car is over the standard 2.5ltr. I bought the sp25 for my wife and its a great car. it drives as well as any euro offering. does a 0-100 in the 7's and still sits around or under the 7ltrs per 100. X is in the 9's for 0-100 seems about the same for fuel consumption and cost $6k more... What has this wonderful technology achived apart from hype??
Bought a 2010 sp25 and fuel consumption is 8.8l and 7.5sec 0 to 100. This is so slow and fuel average is still 9/100km, it's just absurd. Besides, the extra 12k over g25, I don't think that fuel saving will ever pay off
The price in European countries. Mazda uses a 2.0 engine which in a country like the Netherlands is taxed like crazy. The bigger the engine, the more you pay for a car. A Subaru is roughly double the price in the Netherlands compared to the US. A Subaru Outback with the 2.5 liter engine starts at 63k EUR or 70k USD (including tax). Fuel is also around 2 EUR per liter, so in the EU, you make sales with a smaller but economical engine. That's the reason why you see so many 1.0, 1.2 and 1.3 liter engines. The US and other countries outside of the EU have no such taxes so it can make more sense to buy a bigger engine and faster car. Another example is a Golf GTI. In the US they start at 29k USD. Converted to USD, a Golf GTI in the Netherlands starts at 53000 EUR or 59000 USD.
Mazda’s can be VERY efficient depending on how you drive. Have too many heavy footed people driving Mazda’s then wondering why the fuel economy isn’t near what’s mention. Slow down lmao, accelerate smoothly. (You burn the most fuel on take off’s from stops.)
Mazda: 2021 is coming! We’ve built a petro car that it’s fuel efficiency a bit closer to diesel, but runs slower than usual. The market: Okay, sounds like a Toyota. Mazda: Nah... Toyota is faster.
Astina SkyactivX reminds me of 323 GTX but instead of a turbo it has a supercharger with low emission fuel consumption; It's Astina XD turbo diesel successor and top spec than SP25 instead of a former MPS. It should come with a 3 door and AWD rather than a FWD.
It’s that darn 6 speed auto! Come on Mazda! I used to be a Mazda car salesman. I had no problem recommended mazda’s. I had to stop just simply because of that transmission. Yes It’s an extremely reliable transmission and will last forever, but it’s time to add some gears!
even with manual transmission, it is a slow engine. according to a german adac test, a 1.0 125hp focus will outpace the 180hp mazda 3 (both manual) from 60-100 kph in any gear expect second, where the skyactiv-x is a bit quicker. the engine is also not meaningfull quicker than the 2.0 122hp skyactiv-g mazda 3 that is our base model engine.
In order for the compression ignition to work with petrol you need a lot more air in the engine. Thats what the supercharger is for. To always have that perfect air/fuel ratio.
My 2015 BMW 220i was doing 0-100 2,5 quicker, and it has the same power and is almost 200kg havier. That’s the bullshit overpriced piece of crap that Mazda.
Got one, same one (X, auto). In RL, it's pretty nice car in traffic, auto is a bit dumb, manual (paddles) works pretty good for non-PDK (EU here) trans (though it's still new, so not bein revved >4,5k really), you don't really feel sluggishness in day to day ops. It's a car that you have to judge as a whole, that's what they meant (and I also have M3's, including horrible E46 - know what I'm talkin bout here).
Mazda has some of the best manual transmissions out there, especially in this price class. I’m leaning towards buying a 3 myself, I’ve had a test drive and the transmission is so smooth and precise!
@JC-vt6ef It has enough alright, but you just need to kick it in and rev. But....as much as I like (love?) this car as a whole - for 2023 this box is too slow. But!!! It still is a lovely piece of machinery for daily ops (very smooth, more like mercedes type), though If you wanna something sporty, look elsewhere (DKG maybe). Just don't expect sport from these 180 hp - those horses are not in this stable :D
Really cool that they are innovating the way they are. But i wouldn't buy this car with performance figures like these, my Car's engine is half this size, yet yields faster 0 to 100 times. And i bet this top model must cost a pretty penny too.
They keep the large displacement so they can achieve high compression ratio. Skyactiv X has a 16,3 compression ratio. Conventional engines have it from 10 to something around 13.
9 seconds 0-100 so its gonna be slow as fuck from 80-120, 60-100 anyway lol, my mps stock spins through first and second gear so and still does it in half the time this does lol.
People hating on the performance, but I must get this car based on interior and exterior Question is: 150 hp skyactiv g OR 180 hp skyactiv X (which clearly doesn't perform as you'd expect 180 hp to perform)?
@@PaulA-zp7hn Yeah it's really a shame. I was at a Mazda dealer recently and they said they'd go for the 2l G over the X as well. It's cheaper, not particularly slower and it's an already trusted engine
Mazda calls it spark plug controlled compression ignition. But you say just before that, that it can run without spark plugs like a diesel. Which one is it?
@@foxman105 The spark plugs are always running. It compresses a lean air/fuel mixture. It gets ignited through a tiny bit of rich air/fuel mixture injected directly around the spark plug. Sprak plug ignites the rich mixture which increases the pressure and makes the lean mixture undergo compression ignition. You cannot run a petrol with purely compression ignition since it compresses air and fuel together. Biggest problem is that it will always lead to huge engine knock before any sort of controlled compression ignition can develop.
I'm trying to find a car that beats Corolla 1.8 Hatchback with 122hp all the equip that it offers and stuff and no1 cat beat it at speed consumption etc
This one took 1.81m longer to stop than the G20, but .03 seconds quicker at stopping? 😕😕 Also interesting that it's only quicker 0-60, after that the G20 is a little quicker, but the X20 clocked a quicker 1/4 mile time. I thought it would be the opposite because it's the X20 that weighs 90kg more.
There's a new honda city hybrid 1.0 in Malaysia and Thailand. It's a 1.5 but is rated at 27km/l (3.7L/100km) and 0-100 is about 10 seconds. The city turbo 1.0 has similar, maybe a bit quicker, performance.
So getting this engine requires premium fuel and top trim spec yet it is outperformed by the cheapest base model 91 RON 2.0L engine, not to mention the 91 RON 2.5L on the higher trim specs
@@Ethronic But I like that it is manual, i just hate driving AT, and i hate turbo engines. So little choice there :P MT AWD 8,5 sec to 100 km, it is enough for and awd car with no turbo.
@@Ethronic I don't think so, Mazda offers a ton of things as standard, while in other car brands you gotta pay extra for the same features that Mazda has.
@@ravenheart369 might be the transmission. Its as slow at shifting as some 4 speed slush boxes. Even hondas 5 speed auto from 20 years ago shift faster than this.
@@fakenews3676 You mentioned shifting But please take a closer look when the car is in a specific gear The engine does not rev. It struggles. and the engine sound tells a lot, you can clearly hear that engine sound is not lively and sharp. it is just like a car trying to accelerate in a steep uphill. Both transmission and engine are responsible for this horrible acceleration in my opinion
Too slow for the specs my toyota vitz rs 2011 with 1.5 liter does 0 to 100 in 9 sec flat sometimes in the high 8's. I was hyped about this car but i don't want to go for a car with the same performance again.
Well when you drive on the left it would be pretty stupid to have the steering wheel on the left as well, do you not know what goes on in other countries? lots of countries drive on the left, India, Australia, Japan, Britain, South Africa, etc etc.
Don't know if You noticed but it's only avg from tests when it was used at max performance. Show me another car with same power and similar fuel consumption when used to the limit? I have cx-30 mt awd, have the same "milage" as the unit from the movie and got avg 6,3L/100km... It's the same result as 2L diesel on audi a6 quattro... Mazda 3 with skyactiv-x can take less then 4l/100km if properly used...
It has a belt-driven supercharger. Although, it's not really there for performance. It's to help the compression ignition system work more effectively.
@@JeanV1986 No worries. Mazda likes to call it a "high-response air supply" system. More in-depth info on the engine can be found here: www.insidemazda.co.uk/2017/11/07/an-in-depth-look-at-mazdas-skyactiv-x-technology/
@@airmax9085 ... which is not used in conventional way. It do not put extra air to the combustion chamber but make fuel and air mixture leaner to lower fuel consumption.
Well that is one lazy ass supercharger! Heck, how can it even be supercharged with such a bad performance? The old Mazda 3 skyactiv G had 165 hp and did the 0-100 in about 8.5 seconds.
@@Ragedknightmares still, it's pretty slow by any standard for 180 bhp. I test drive one, it doesn't feel any quicker than my Honda Civic 1.8 140 bhp I used to have. It seems like the newer 186 bhp is slightly quicker.
It's an automatic - how can we get it wrong? We ran multiple tests with the Vbox, trying out different modes and take-off methods. This is the best result we got from this car.
Performance isn’t good enough for a hatchback with 180hp. I mean come on it’s slower than a bmw 3 series with the same power by quite a long way. Lacking in torque also.
Guys if you are new to this channel I think I have to inform you that this driver doesn't even know how to do a proper acceleration run ,every freaking time the acceleration is about 0.5 or even a hole second slower than the estimated times from the factory .The only car they did a good job is the Toyota yaris gr ,because they knew that the car is extremely popular and the video will be shown as a flex content ......😝😝😅! I'm just telling you the truth!!!
Thanks for your insight. We use a Racelogic Vbox Sport on every car. Results are taken directly from the device. We try all modes and multiple runs to try and find the quickest time for each car we test. Sometimes manufacturer's claims are unrealistic for the real world or they are based on simulations or estimates. Our times are based on real world conditions. In this car's case, there are not many ways to "do a proper acceleration run", as the car features a torque converter automatic. You must be upset the car did not perform as well as you had hoped. Sorry to disappoint you.
@@PDriveTV no I'm not Mazda's fan not at all I prefer European car brands because of the quality and luxury ,the video was recomended to me ,cause I watch your channel quite frequently and that's my conclusion .I knew you wouldn't be able to launch a car with a cvt gearbox and guess what ,I was right again!!I love car reviews and yours are no different ,but you have to do something with the acceleration runs !!
@@PDriveTV I would recommend brake torque in cars without launch control especially in front wheel drive cars because they tend to spin the front wheels without it and hold the revs about 2.000-2.500 rpm .In cars with launch control you don't have to do something particularly difficult just try two runs one with esc on and one with esc off ,this one might also help cars without launch control
@@TonyFelony19 Well then that would explain it, I once had a 1994 Starlet GT turbo 1.4 that could hit 60 in a shade under 7 seconds but I couldn't think of any modern equivalent that would be capable of it except maybe the Fiat 595 Abarth.
Mazda = Headache Check the ACCC vs Mazda, you will get more real cases. The case is ongoing. The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Mazda Australia Pty Ltd (Mazda) alleging that Mazda engaged in unconscionable conduct and made false or misleading representations in its dealings with consumers Mazda has bad engines!!! bad service!!! I got a brand new cx-9 5 months ago in Brisbane, it has been towed back to dealership twice due to engine issues. and mazda never told you any detail about your car's issue.
It costs over 5000 Euro less than a VW Golf, is not extremely fast, but makes much fun on the road at a very low fuel consumption and I don't have any problems with the brake pedal. And I drive a Mazda 3 Skyactiv-X since January 2020 and for over 25.000 kilometers.
What an utterly pointless endeavour this has been for Mazda. A miniscule improvement in fuel economy has been erased as the car is so slow you’ll be stamping on the loud pedal to get anywhere. Smaller capacity turbo would have yielded far better results
It's just like the start/stop 'technology' that Mazda and other cars have been doing for years, all to save a whole 0.1L/km. All these bandaid attempts at reducing fuel economy comes at a price of performance, increased complexity and cost (which more than negates an tangible benefits).
@Nomore4x4s you miss the point. The whole song and dance Mazda made about compression ignition on skyactiv-x petrol engines has not translated to real-world improvements. Fuel economy is barely different to their stock skyactiv-g engine range. Performance is poor as well. Where is the benefit from the countless millions Mazda spent developing and marketing this? As can be seen in real-world economy tests, a VW Golf 1.4 tsi or skoda octavia 1.4 tsi is both quicker and more economical. Hell, Hyundai get similar economy and much better performance out of the DI 2.0 in the base model i30. Skyactiv-X is a load of toss
The start stop is only for emissions when the car stands still, but there is definitively an improvement in fuel economy from about a liter. What do you expect? But the performance isn‘t great, but it was never ment to be.
The benefits? In practice it gets better fuel economy than engines with similar displacement and hp. 5 to 6 litres per 100 kilometres is very efficient for such a displacement. I've never seen the 2L G or 2,5L G get better economy than 7 to 8 litres per 100 kilometres. Besides that the X has low CO2 and NOX values, only 135 grams of CO2 per kilometer (with auto) according to the WLTP! For the 2L G with auto it's 163 grams per kilometre. That's a big difference, that's the benefit of the X over the G. The problem with the X is the price, for markets like Australia and America it's a very expensive upgrade and for countries like these fuel economy isn't such a big thing as for Europe. Here in Europe the X costs only a thousand euros more and since everything is about fuel economy nowadays. Almost every 3 or CX-30 is sold with the X engine because it's the better option! The X could be great for markets like America and Australia too but it's just too expensive now.
@@joshuagommers3672 fail. In reality, economy is no different to any other similar displacement petrol. Its been a complete waste of time and effort. Emissions are tied to efficiency, so the NOx and CO2 will also be similar to any similar petrol engine
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
Exciting stuff starts at 2:29
T
I’m not sure ‘exciting’ is the right word to use on this occasion 😂
You mean 3:01
When it was new 9.2 from 0-100km / h after 20,000km
8.4 seconds. It's just that it's my manual transmission, at the start I release the clutch at 3900 rpm, the second gear goes over 100 km / h
The truth is he is not a runner, he drives very nicely and there is no high excise duty due to Co2
8.9 liters is not true, the average consumption is 6.2 l / 100km
Rpm on 140-160kmh?
@@morishogo144 sth like 3 k
Some say that this engine has full power after 5,000 km.
K
All we know he's called the stig - jeremy Clarkson
Full power mean like adding 20% power after 5000km? It is impossible and at best the different is only 5% or lesser. So don't expect too much different on it
Everybody that knows anything about engines knows that a new engine needs a break-in time...10k mostly
I agree.
Mazda: "it's a 10 second car"
The market: "H0l* sh8 that is fast"
Mazda: "0-100"
Honda 0_100 8 s focus 8.5 do ? Its horible car
It is a great car. If you don’t care about accelerstion and speed.
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
I think a lot of people forget that the SkyActiv-X was designed to reach a frankly awesome 44% thermal efficiency. Considering the average engine is somewhere between 25% for a really cheap vehicle of 10 years ago, and maybe 30% for a more modern vehicle, I'd say approaching 35% in a car as freaking advanced as the Koenigsegg Regera (also a hybrid btw so that fudges some things), 44% still blows my mind. That's approaching half of all the fuel's energy being converted into horsepower.
It means nothing if you’re paying a good deal more to put in premium fuel in this car for it to be even slower than the base 2.0L engine model on 91 RON that’s nearly $15k cheaper. Not to mention save a few thousand and get the more powerful 2.5L that also runs on 91 RON and outperforms both other engines.
then why it averages 8.8l to 100 k?
@@GamingHistory. maybe because it was a test car, and people usually abuse test cars🤷♂
@@User-cb4jm i dont think skyactiv-x engine requires premium fuel and it's not slower than the base 2.0l engine. I've seen better 0-100 times on youtube. 8.4s is the best time I've seen.
I have the X186... and equipped the car with areo package, bigger whels and more stuff.... I get on avg 7,4l/100km... if I didn't put everything on I would get 7l/100km and it's great...
A broken into skyactiv-x automatic uses around 5.8 l per 100 km if driven at 110 kmh. Consumtion lower if driving slower. The manual is slightly more fuel efficient. It has pretty good torque aswell. I dont find mine that slow, and ive done 20000 KM in mine. I am very happy with my purchase. But if your fuel prices are low, like in Australia, USA, Canada, then the 2.5 version might be more bang for your buck unless you drive a lot to make up for the increased cost of the X model.
5.8 at 110kmh? That is shockingly bad for cruise economy for a supposed 'next generation' fuel efficient petrol engine. Terrible cars from 10 years ago are able to get 5-6l/100km at 110.
@@user-vk4vd7vr5t I said 'around'. Less depending on weather and tires and season and trafic
D which cars should that be?
@@cachememory vw tfsi, 5L of fuel and 1 L of oil/100 km.
Im struggling to see what the advantage of this car is over the standard 2.5ltr. I bought the sp25 for my wife and its a great car. it drives as well as any euro offering. does a 0-100 in the 7's and still sits around or under the 7ltrs per 100. X is in the 9's for 0-100 seems about the same for fuel consumption and cost $6k more... What has this wonderful technology achived apart from hype??
Bought a 2010 sp25 and fuel consumption is 8.8l and 7.5sec 0 to 100. This is so slow and fuel average is still 9/100km, it's just absurd. Besides, the extra 12k over g25, I don't think that fuel saving will ever pay off
The price in European countries. Mazda uses a 2.0 engine which in a country like the Netherlands is taxed like crazy. The bigger the engine, the more you pay for a car. A Subaru is roughly double the price in the Netherlands compared to the US. A Subaru Outback with the 2.5 liter engine starts at 63k EUR or 70k USD (including tax). Fuel is also around 2 EUR per liter, so in the EU, you make sales with a smaller but economical engine. That's the reason why you see so many 1.0, 1.2 and 1.3 liter engines. The US and other countries outside of the EU have no such taxes so it can make more sense to buy a bigger engine and faster car.
Another example is a Golf GTI. In the US they start at 29k USD. Converted to USD, a Golf GTI in the Netherlands starts at 53000 EUR or 59000 USD.
It's a Mazda. That's reason enough to buy.
Mazda’s can be VERY efficient depending on how you drive. Have too many heavy footed people driving Mazda’s then wondering why the fuel economy isn’t near what’s mention. Slow down lmao, accelerate smoothly. (You burn the most fuel on take off’s from stops.)
Leg room has always been the PITA for Mazda.
I'm enjoying my turbo Mazda3 and I can tell you that it's a 5.5+ seconds car to 60mph.
Video or it didn't happen
@@noid900 no need to when there are videos already proving what I'm saying already.🤷♂️
@@noid900 Go and check driving sports channel. There is a mazda 3 turbo acceleration test and it makes 6s do 60miles.
No it's not lol
We need the Turbo Mazda 3
no
@@hoinart yes
This one is supercharged, so I don't think they will add a turbo
@@זהסודי-ה7מ the turbo released for long time
@@rbaaj7776 I thought you talked about a turbocharged version of this engine...
I have this engine in Mazda CX-30 and I got average consuption7,4L/100km. It is really fun car just like every powerful Mazda.
That's average
Mazda: 2021 is coming! We’ve built a petro car that it’s fuel efficiency a bit closer to diesel, but runs slower than usual.
The market: Okay, sounds like a Toyota.
Mazda: Nah... Toyota is faster.
and doesn't deliver torque like it's diesel counterpart. what is it then ?
what toyota?
Mazda announced this car is getting a boost in HP to 188 and 177lb-ft of torque. So 12 more ponies is good right?
0 to 100km/h is 10 sec. Legend.
Due to sport mode.😇
i've seen better numbers, even 8.4s.
Astina SkyactivX reminds me of 323 GTX but instead of a turbo it has a supercharger with low emission fuel consumption; It's Astina XD turbo diesel successor and top spec than SP25 instead of a former MPS. It should come with a 3 door and AWD rather than a FWD.
Except the 323 was faster
It’s that darn 6 speed auto! Come on Mazda! I used to be a Mazda car salesman. I had no problem recommended mazda’s. I had to stop just simply because of that transmission. Yes It’s an extremely reliable transmission and will last forever, but it’s time to add some gears!
even with manual transmission, it is a slow engine. according to a german adac test, a 1.0 125hp focus will outpace the 180hp mazda 3 (both manual) from 60-100 kph in any gear expect second, where the skyactiv-x is a bit quicker. the engine is also not meaningfull quicker than the 2.0 122hp skyactiv-g mazda 3 that is our base model engine.
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
Is that supercharger working? My 2.0 Elantra with just a k&n filter does 0-60 in the mid 7's
The supercharger in this application is only being used as a range extender it has nothing to do with extra power innthe vehicle
In order for the compression ignition to work with petrol you need a lot more air in the engine. Thats what the supercharger is for. To always have that perfect air/fuel ratio.
Damn the fuel consumption, I want more power.
Honestly expected it to be a bit quicker
My 2015 BMW 220i was doing 0-100 2,5 quicker, and it has the same power and is almost 200kg havier. That’s the bullshit overpriced piece of crap that Mazda.
@@mexykpietrov mazda is naturally aspirated while your bmw is turbocharged..
@@mexykpietrov So you reckon a 1600kg car with 180 hp was doing 0 to 62 in 7 seconds, don't make me laugh.
I30 2009 10sec to 0/100km/h
HCCI, the pinnacle of combustion efficiency
Got one, same one (X, auto). In RL, it's pretty nice car in traffic, auto is a bit dumb, manual (paddles) works pretty good for non-PDK (EU here) trans (though it's still new, so not bein revved >4,5k really), you don't really feel sluggishness in day to day ops. It's a car that you have to judge as a whole, that's what they meant (and I also have M3's, including horrible E46 - know what I'm talkin bout here).
Mazda has some of the best manual transmissions out there, especially in this price class. I’m leaning towards buying a 3 myself, I’ve had a test drive and the transmission is so smooth and precise!
@JC-vt6ef It has enough alright, but you just need to kick it in and rev. But....as much as I like (love?) this car as a whole - for 2023 this box is too slow. But!!! It still is a lovely piece of machinery for daily ops (very smooth, more like mercedes type), though If you wanna something sporty, look elsewhere (DKG maybe). Just don't expect sport from these 180 hp - those horses are not in this stable :D
This is a new technology, give it time I'm sure they'll make improvements in due time (if this type of engine stays reliable)
Really cool that they are innovating the way they are. But i wouldn't buy this car with performance figures like these, my Car's engine is half this size, yet yields faster 0 to 100 times. And i bet this top model must cost a pretty penny too.
They keep the large displacement so they can achieve high compression ratio. Skyactiv X has a 16,3 compression ratio. Conventional engines have it from 10 to something around 13.
Guys, 0-100 km/h is not relevant, you don't need this in real life! 80-120 or 60-100 are more important figures!
9 seconds 0-100 so its gonna be slow as fuck from 80-120, 60-100 anyway lol, my mps stock spins through first and second gear so and still does it in half the time this does lol.
People hating on the performance, but I must get this car based on interior and exterior
Question is: 150 hp skyactiv g OR 180 hp skyactiv X (which clearly doesn't perform as you'd expect 180 hp to perform)?
The 2.5l G is probably the better engine. It has more torque than the X too.
@@Filipolis some lucky markets have it...not here in Germany unfortunately
@@PaulA-zp7hn Yeah it's really a shame. I was at a Mazda dealer recently and they said they'd go for the 2l G over the X as well. It's cheaper, not particularly slower and it's an already trusted engine
They should have marketed it a hybrid fuel sipper, not an overall improvement in performance. Strip down awd and options to reduce weight.
which is better, this one or focus 150hp?
I wil
Be test driving it next week all people making comments have they test driven it ?
17 sec quarter mile! Imagine being over 1 second slower than a 37 year old Cordia Turbo lawl.
Lol Imagine it being slower then my 2011 toyota vitz RS 1.5 liter! I tought my car was slow😱.
Even worse, its now slower than a hilux
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
Mazda calls it spark plug controlled compression ignition. But you say just before that, that it can run without spark plugs like a diesel. Which one is it?
When it's cold it uses spark plugs, when it gets to operating temp it switches the plugs off making it run like a diesel.
@@foxman105 The spark plugs are always running. It compresses a lean air/fuel mixture. It gets ignited through a tiny bit of rich air/fuel mixture injected directly around the spark plug. Sprak plug ignites the rich mixture which increases the pressure and makes the lean mixture undergo compression ignition. You cannot run a petrol with purely compression ignition since it compresses air and fuel together. Biggest problem is that it will always lead to huge engine knock before any sort of controlled compression ignition can develop.
Old song atmosphérique ingine ❤❤👌
Slower than a hilux. What happened to the days of zoom zoom zoom. 💀🤣
Zoom zoom in ya boom boom!
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
I'm trying to find a car that beats Corolla 1.8 Hatchback with 122hp all the equip that it offers and stuff and no1 cat beat it at speed consumption etc
sounds nice :)
Yup, like diesel
This one took 1.81m longer to stop than the G20, but .03 seconds quicker at stopping? 😕😕
Also interesting that it's only quicker 0-60, after that the G20 is a little quicker, but the X20 clocked a quicker 1/4 mile time. I thought it would be the opposite because it's the X20 that weighs 90kg more.
Would have kicked ass if it came with all wheel drive
Hell it's like watching paint dry. It's so SLOW
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
When do you think we'll see the Turbo, mate?
Hasn't been confirmed for Australia - so far only LHD production.
Sport exhaust?
I'm quite disappointed about it's performance, but everything else about it is excellent though.
Then you might as well save $2000 and go for the regular G25 Astina
What you expect from 2litre engine?
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
How to activate those flash lights in the front so they actually blink ?
I doubt they actually blink. I've seen many videos where they may seem they do but this is purely in a video recording but not in real life.
Please test the new Skoda Superb Sportline. Some Euro reviews are indicating 0-100 time well below officially stated 5.8 secs.
Supercharged and a mild - hybrid. if you want fuel economy buy a 1.0 or 1.3 litre you will most probably extract the same if not better performance.
There's a new honda city hybrid 1.0 in Malaysia and Thailand. It's a 1.5 but is rated at 27km/l (3.7L/100km) and 0-100 is about 10 seconds. The city turbo 1.0 has similar, maybe a bit quicker, performance.
So getting this engine requires premium fuel and top trim spec yet it is outperformed by the cheapest base model 91 RON 2.0L engine, not to mention the 91 RON 2.5L on the higher trim specs
Beautiful, but sluggish car
There is manual version with AWD, I think it is enough. But automatic transmission eats all the power and there is nothing left.
@@Krzysiufpp at this price point you can have cars with AWD, automatic transmission, good interior quality and they will be way faster
@@Ethronic But I like that it is manual, i just hate driving AT, and i hate turbo engines. So little choice there :P
MT AWD 8,5 sec to 100 km, it is enough for and awd car with no turbo.
@@Ethronic I don't think so, Mazda offers a ton of things as standard, while in other car brands you gotta pay extra for the same features that Mazda has.
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
Why couldn’t they put a supercharger on the sp25 😢
Quanto custa essa máquina show de bola
The sky(activ) is the limit.
Love that supercharger sound, too bad its really slow
there is not supercharger or anything in this version
Is this the quietest car that you have tested
VERY slow for it's power-to-weight ratio.
And we still don't know why
True, similar power to weight ratio as a 2003 accord euro yet way slower.
Old accord euro was like 8 seconds flat with a 5 speed auto
@@ravenheart369 might be the transmission. Its as slow at shifting as some 4 speed slush boxes. Even hondas 5 speed auto from 20 years ago shift faster than this.
@@fakenews3676 You mentioned shifting
But please take a closer look when the car is in a specific gear
The engine does not rev. It struggles. and the engine sound tells a lot, you can clearly hear that engine sound is not lively and sharp. it is just like a car trying to accelerate in a steep uphill.
Both transmission and engine are responsible for this horrible acceleration in my opinion
@@fakenews3676 it’s a luxury vehicle not a sports car
Funny how everyone was bashing the toyota yaris and the vitz rs but that one is a 1.5 and is a second faster then this oh dear haters will roast me.
My 2014 VF Calais V6 got 6.1 second in 0-100km/h and 9L per 100km is same as this Mazda 3 fuel. Hmmm......
I wouldn't go by what's shown on the dash. This car gets flogged. Look at tthe scored rotors at the start of the video.
The sky active X20 is listed as 6/100 combined, 5.4/100 extra urban, so 33% less than your imaginary 9/100, which is actually more likely 10+L/100km
0 100 in 8 max 8.5. No way in 9.79. in 9.3 i make 0 100 with my 2.0 diesel 140 HP passat b7 break. Bad driver, change the driver 😂😂😂
Naturally aspirated is slow but it will last a long time.
It's supercharged
Too slow for the specs my toyota vitz rs 2011 with 1.5 liter does 0 to 100 in 9 sec flat sometimes in the high 8's. I was hyped about this car but i don't want to go for a car with the same performance again.
@@ibj3 buy a Yaris gr lol
i want to Mazda3 2.5T or 2.2XD
Luckily they put that 2.5 turbo on this beauty , but why all mazda cars have such weak brakes?!
Cost reasons
Not in Australia, no 2.5 turbo in the 3
Looks nice but sorry mate , I just wait for the new WRX.
When does it come?
@@STI385i I heard one more year to wait
@@dominicmota5564 ok
My wife's SP25 would wax this thing, pretty disappointing
Get the manual transmission. Less slow and more fun !
Not particularly fast. Maybe mazda 6AT a bit slow or gear ratio..
It's so weird driving wheel at the right side
Yeah that's how it is in Australia, UK and Japan etc we have close left turns and big right turns 👌
Well when you drive on the left it would be pretty stupid to have the steering wheel on the left as well, do you not know what goes on in other countries? lots of countries drive on the left, India, Australia, Japan, Britain, South Africa, etc etc.
0-100 = 9.79 sec .. and still gets the poor 9L/100km LOL
if a car uses 9L/100km.. it should at least hits 100km/h in 5 or 6sec
Don't know if You noticed but it's only avg from tests when it was used at max performance. Show me another car with same power and similar fuel consumption when used to the limit? I have cx-30 mt awd, have the same "milage" as the unit from the movie and got avg 6,3L/100km... It's the same result as 2L diesel on audi a6 quattro... Mazda 3 with skyactiv-x can take less then 4l/100km if properly used...
not 9L/100, 5.4 - 6/100
Fucking quick
After doing some more research, I am pretty positive this doesn't have a supercharger, it's a N/A engine.
It has a belt-driven supercharger. Although, it's not really there for performance. It's to help the compression ignition system work more effectively.
@@PDriveTV thank you for the additional information. I think Mazda really shouldn't advertise this as a "supercharged" car then.
@@JeanV1986 No worries. Mazda likes to call it a "high-response air supply" system. More in-depth info on the engine can be found here: www.insidemazda.co.uk/2017/11/07/an-in-depth-look-at-mazdas-skyactiv-x-technology/
@@PDriveTV many thanks the educating me 😋 have a nice day.
Honda Civic turbo 127kw *CVT* 0-100 7,54
wxwxwxwx..
With turbo... SkyActive X have compressor.
@@airmax9085 ... which is not used in conventional way. It do not put extra air to the combustion chamber but make fuel and air mixture leaner to lower fuel consumption.
Design competes with European cars. Performance competes with Chinese cars.
strange that slow ;/ , at least we have now 2.5T u must test it ! :)
There should be something wrong with this unit.
Hard to think that a 180hp is that slow
0/100 in 8”6
This car is NOT supercharged at all, it's naturally aspirated....
It features a belt-driven compressor that pressurises induction... otherwise known as a supercharger.
@@PDriveTV But it's not there to boost the performance like a normal supercharger which works in a completely different way.
Well that is one lazy ass supercharger! Heck, how can it even be supercharged with such a bad performance? The old Mazda 3 skyactiv G had 165 hp and did the 0-100 in about 8.5 seconds.
The supercharger isn't used for extra performance. It's for the fuel economy and ignition.
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
@@Ragedknightmares still, it's pretty slow by any standard for 180 bhp. I test drive one, it doesn't feel any quicker than my Honda Civic 1.8 140 bhp I used to have. It seems like the newer 186 bhp is slightly quicker.
Gearing is so dumb, 2nd gear to 130+ kph, wth, no wonder it is slow
2nd Gear only goes to 90 kph?
That's the 3rd, kind sir
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
It's not the car but the driver or how he drove that is slow. 0-100 is like 2 seconds slower than it should be.
It's an automatic - how can we get it wrong? We ran multiple tests with the Vbox, trying out different modes and take-off methods. This is the best result we got from this car.
Performance isn’t good enough for a hatchback with 180hp. I mean come on it’s slower than a bmw 3 series with the same power by quite a long way. Lacking in torque also.
This thing needs a remap
Almost as bad as my 2001 75 hp Golf. Disappointing for 2 L and 2021.
128bhp/ton
What a joke.
the 1.0 fiesta is faster than this car
Got a turbo
Slow car....mah 180hp? Where are?😁
My tuned Golf R gets better economy
My corolla goes faster then this around 7-8 second mark.
Guys if you are new to this channel I think I have to inform you that this driver doesn't even know how to do a proper acceleration run ,every freaking time the acceleration is about 0.5 or even a hole second slower than the estimated times from the factory .The only car they did a good job is the Toyota yaris gr ,because they knew that the car is extremely popular and the video will be shown as a flex content ......😝😝😅! I'm just telling you the truth!!!
Thanks for your insight. We use a Racelogic Vbox Sport on every car. Results are taken directly from the device. We try all modes and multiple runs to try and find the quickest time for each car we test. Sometimes manufacturer's claims are unrealistic for the real world or they are based on simulations or estimates. Our times are based on real world conditions. In this car's case, there are not many ways to "do a proper acceleration run", as the car features a torque converter automatic. You must be upset the car did not perform as well as you had hoped. Sorry to disappoint you.
@@PDriveTV no I'm not Mazda's fan not at all I prefer European car brands because of the quality and luxury ,the video was recomended to me ,cause I watch your channel quite frequently and that's my conclusion .I knew you wouldn't be able to launch a car with a cvt gearbox and guess what ,I was right again!!I love car reviews and yours are no different ,but you have to do something with the acceleration runs !!
@@djtnfjcmr What do you recommend we do? We'd love to hear your advice on how to launch a car.
@@PDriveTV I would recommend brake torque in cars without launch control especially in front wheel drive cars because they tend to spin the front wheels without it and hold the revs about 2.000-2.500 rpm .In cars with launch control you don't have to do something particularly difficult just try two runs one with esc on and one with esc off ,this one might also help cars without launch control
This is sad
My 13 year old Subaru Forester accelerates quicker than this thing....
lmao, this was slow AF , my 1.4 petrol engine reaches 0-100 in 7 seconds and has less hp but a little more torque
Tell me what 1.4 engine you have that will hit 60 in 7 seconds.
@@cmpillred277 twin charged TSI , turbo and compressor
@@TonyFelony19 Well then that would explain it, I once had a 1994 Starlet GT turbo 1.4 that could hit 60 in a shade under 7 seconds but I couldn't think of any modern equivalent that would be capable of it except maybe the Fiat 595 Abarth.
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
super slow for 180hp.
Mazda = Headache
Check the ACCC vs Mazda, you will get more real cases. The case is ongoing.
The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Mazda Australia Pty Ltd (Mazda) alleging that Mazda engaged in unconscionable conduct and made false or misleading representations in its dealings with consumers
Mazda has bad engines!!! bad service!!!
I got a brand new cx-9 5 months ago in Brisbane, it has been towed back to dealership twice due to engine issues. and mazda never told you any detail about your car's issue.
Very slow
Sexiest hatchback in my book
It needs an all digital dash to keep up with the joneses.
Civic FC does better than this with 173hp
2:29
0-100 10s!!! 180hp? Joke
Mazda. Horible
This car isn’t suppose to be fast. This is a luxury vehicle not a sports car. The slow shifting is to make the car more smooth and enjoyable.
omg,so fast
Expensive, slow and the brake pedal deserves a mention of being super numb in this new platform, sometimes alarmingly so...
It costs over 5000 Euro less than a VW Golf, is not extremely fast, but makes much fun on the road at a very low fuel consumption and I don't have any problems with the brake pedal. And I drive a Mazda 3 Skyactiv-X since January 2020 and for over 25.000 kilometers.
What an utterly pointless endeavour this has been for Mazda. A miniscule improvement in fuel economy has been erased as the car is so slow you’ll be stamping on the loud pedal to get anywhere. Smaller capacity turbo would have yielded far better results
It's just like the start/stop 'technology' that Mazda and other cars have been doing for years, all to save a whole 0.1L/km. All these bandaid attempts at reducing fuel economy comes at a price of performance, increased complexity and cost (which more than negates an tangible benefits).
@Nomore4x4s you miss the point. The whole song and dance Mazda made about compression ignition on skyactiv-x petrol engines has not translated to real-world improvements.
Fuel economy is barely different to their stock skyactiv-g engine range. Performance is poor as well. Where is the benefit from the countless millions Mazda spent developing and marketing this?
As can be seen in real-world economy tests, a VW Golf 1.4 tsi or skoda octavia 1.4 tsi is both quicker and more economical. Hell, Hyundai get similar economy and much better performance out of the DI 2.0 in the base model i30.
Skyactiv-X is a load of toss
The start stop is only for emissions when the car stands still, but there is definitively an improvement in fuel economy from about a liter. What do you expect? But the performance isn‘t great, but it was never ment to be.
The benefits? In practice it gets better fuel economy than engines with similar displacement and hp. 5 to 6 litres per 100 kilometres is very efficient for such a displacement. I've never seen the 2L G or 2,5L G get better economy than 7 to 8 litres per 100 kilometres. Besides that the X has low CO2 and NOX values, only 135 grams of CO2 per kilometer (with auto) according to the WLTP! For the 2L G with auto it's 163 grams per kilometre. That's a big difference, that's the benefit of the X over the G. The problem with the X is the price, for markets like Australia and America it's a very expensive upgrade and for countries like these fuel economy isn't such a big thing as for Europe. Here in Europe the X costs only a thousand euros more and since everything is about fuel economy nowadays. Almost every 3 or CX-30 is sold with the X engine because it's the better option! The X could be great for markets like America and Australia too but it's just too expensive now.
@@joshuagommers3672 fail. In reality, economy is no different to any other similar displacement petrol. Its been a complete waste of time and effort. Emissions are tied to efficiency, so the NOx and CO2 will also be similar to any similar petrol engine
Manual gearbox would be different if you knew how to drive it, millennials, lol! ❤️🇦🇺
2.0 that is not 200 hp. Acceleration that is not that fast. Fuel saving that is not too great.
遅い
公道走るのに何を求めてるんでしょうか。2リッターNAなら必要十分。燃費20出す自信ありますし。