How did Mazda fail with SkyActiv X...?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 мар 2020
- Professional Maintenance Products I Recommend
Engine Oil Flush PRO - amzn.to/45egARf
Engine Oil I recommend - Liqui Moly 5W30 (Made in Germany) - amzn.to/46htcs6
Wear Additive I recommend - Ceratec - amzn.to/3Q6uYqF
Gasoline System Cleaner PRO - amzn.to/3tjXcVT
Diesel System Cleaner PRO - amzn.to/3rCYUkK
Diesel DPF Protector Additive - amzn.to/3RGJeaI 
Авто/Мото
I love Mazda, I test drove all their 2.0 engines lately - 2.0 SkyActiv G with 122HP, the 2.0 SkyActiv X with 180HP and the 2.0 Sky Activ G with 184HP on the MX5. The G's are great, but the X needs a lot more improvements.
Skyactive X engine is like running on velvet, it is a smooth and economic engine. It also give Mazda 3 the power it deserve, but it never claim to be a racing car.
122hp Skyactiv-G is also disappointing, 1-liter turbocharged competition feels less anemic.
@tom tomNo, it is slow. It lacks torwue big time and that's how it feels on the road. Turbocharged competition accelerates much better in normal traffic without using more fuel.
sic22l turbos are a joke. Pure garbage and an unnecessary strain.
@@sic22l I drove both the skyactive x and the new Leon FR 1.5 eTsi and I can tell you the Tsi would leave it for dust. It pulls hard like a diesel yet revvs out as a petrol should
Turbos are an unreliable joke.
I think the review failed.
It does what it's supposed to. A genuine 47mpg (UK) from an auto Mazda 3 and it feels as if it has all 184bhp. If you're used to turbos, as most people now are, it will feel different. My only small criticism is a light pinking noise at around 2300rm, which is apparently normal.
12 liters? A total lie .. I had this car for a couple of months, driven in the city never over 7.3 lit. When you accelerate, the clutch slipped .. Sorry, but you're not really a good driver
I agree, i own a (manual) mazda 3 skyactiv-x hatchback, i have never hit an average of 12 L / 100 km in urban driving.
Does the guy floor it each time he starts from a standstill or something ???
@@Mendra He probably only drove in reverse at 6500rpm, hahaha .. I have to admit the car goes much better after 6000km. Obviously the car is deliberately reduced power due to WLTP tests that are done only on new vehicles, later no one cares and therefore Skyactiv X has a compressor that is electric, just adds a little more air and fuel and that's more power
@@Mendra I don't even get such a bad consuption in my 2.5 Skyactiv G Mazda3...
@@Mendra Maybe he received a flawed unit
He is right on everything he says except the fuel economy which i can't speak of as i didn't drive the car for 100km. I have test driven the 180bhp version, i can say that the car doesn't feel like the claimed 180bhp 260nm car. It feels more like 90hp and 110NM. The engine is very noisy and the torsion beam rear end is nervous in wet. Everything else about this car is awesome.
300KM TO REVIEW a car. Come back whern you reach 8000km
It is all wheel drive with 4.7 liter per 100 km and you think it is bad. Sorry but you really need to know about the other cars. Anyway thumbs down. This is great innovation , most people agreed on that.
good headline!
You fooled us all into watching
I mistakenly thought I was about to learn something bad about a good engine
You don’t know what you are talking about. Please learn more and research to better understand Mazda’s philosophy
This guy shifts like a 10 year old kid i believe this review is a failure not the car!
Actually, your review is a failure, not the car or the engine!
This video is either a click bait, or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I agree
This engine is a failure. It's as slow as the regular 2.0 engine while using exactly the same amout of fuel.
@@sic22l, your opinion is a failure, I don' t think you know what you're talking about.
@Mihai Nicolae
My opinion has been confirmed in multiple tests.
"Doesn't feel like it has 180 horse power" ... Maybe because it's not turbocharged?
Exactly but if people actually learned to drive naturally aspirated engines and used that magic invention called gearbox in adequate RPMs it would pull exactly like you expect it to, it's a petrol/gasoline engine after all so use those RPMs when you need to accelerate quickly. Too many spoiled turbo diesel drivers these days that don't use gearbox because they don't need to but then dual mass flywheel goes kaput in no time. Don't get me started on rev matching... Simply put, these kind of vehicles are for people that want to actually drive and be present and in my opinion manual gearbox is a must.
132 kW are 132 kW. There is no difference made between charged and natural aspirated engines.
What most People don't get is the difference between power and force.
Power = Force * Velocity
As long as you use the same power at the same speed, you get the same force.
So if someone claimes the car to accelerate like a car with 66 kW and 110 Nm (like someone in the comment section did), it is because they don't make use of the full power the engine could deliver.
Some people seem to have difficulties with using a gear box properly. If you consider the gearing ratio you'll see, that first gear reaches a topspeed of about 14 m/ s and second gear about 28 m/ s.
If you want to accelerate from 14 m/ s to 28 m/ s and make full use of the power delivery, you should use second gear. Those people complaining about power delivery often are using 5. or 4. gear, rarely 3., thus beeing the problem themself.
It is like only pushing the throttle pedal half way and complaining about the lack of power.
@@fwebe2871 For the average Joe turbo will always seem much faster than supercharged or naturally aspirated engine with equal power simply because you get torque hence power much earlier in the revs with turbo. Tho truth is that equally powered turbo and naturally aspirated with the same gearbox will have the same top speed but turbo charged one will get there quicker, but if you had "ideal" gearbox (instant gear change and infinite or lots of gears) you would get same acceleration on both of them.
It’s not only the fact that’s it’s not turbo, it genuinely feels like it has 130hp. I’ve driven it, and it felt slower than a 120 n/a volvo. It’s not that slow, it’s just disappointing
@@XPACT3 in reviews people use all the revs and skyactive x 180 still does 0-62 in 10 seconds. Its 180hp is a scam
I have X with AWD, 85 % of my driving is urban. My average is 8.0 L/100 km. And the city I live in is one big traffic jam. On the highway 5.0 L/100 km is easly possible to achieve. I believe that on longer extra-urban driving 4.5 can be done.
Those are exactly the same numbers as the regular Skyactiv-G gets.
@@sic22l Yes, but X has more horsepower and the torque is earlier
It has more horsepower above 4700 rpm. Torque is pretty much the same.
@@sic22l wrong, in x max torque is at 3000 in g at 4000, drove both, there is a difference.
@Krzysiufpp
Dyno graph for you:ruclips.net/video/74LTOouHBQ4/видео.html
I have the 6 speed auto 2 litre mild hybrid. I am happy with the balance of power and it handles well also. A crazy amount of features
How could you say it's a failure? Turbo engines will feel quicker but may wear out faster. I hate it when consumers say a tech is a failure because they don't like it.
Dont understand why 50mpg is a dissappointment to you. An accord hybrid gets 47mpg. Camry hybrid 52
Ioniq 58mpg
Prius v 51mpg.
I mean its relatively around the same as some of the other competitors that are fwd...
Listen to him properly. He says disappointment is valid for city drive and 12 L/100 kmh is way too much.
Get the bus into town dude ffs!
This is the first car review where are more dislikes than likes, if this is your opinion than put the camera away.
A review from an actual owner of the X, I have the updated 186 bhp engine there is no knock noise it's lovely and quite trust me, the guy above is testing an auto so of course it will use more fuel, I owned a 2.2 diesel Mazda 6 and this car doesn't get the same Mpg as the diesel, but it's still very good, and you have to factor in at the time of writing diesel in nearly 30 p more per ltr, the hybrid part well it shouldn't be called a hybrid really it's a 24 volt battery which is used to power some electronic items in the car, to get the most out of the engine get it up to 3300 rpm flick it into the next gear and it will shift, but you can't have everything in a world where fuel is going up and up at least I know I've got an engine that gives decent mpg, it's not diesel fuel economy, but it's not 2.0 litre petrol economy either, I would say it sits in-between the two, the x is more expensive than the G engine but the X gives you a sunroof and black alloy wheels, the additional cost of the X engine will probably outway what you save on fuel as apposed to the G one, but I wanted the sunroof as it's a pretty dark cabin otherwise, and if I keep it 4 years I imagine the cost of fuel will skyrocket, so I am happy with my purchase, by the way mine has the full body kit, every option and it looks so different to a standard model
That's my same feeling about skyactive x engine, that i own with my cx30.
@@dinosgurado you have the knocking sound because I do on the newer 186bhp engine.
@@danilozoff1411 no absolutely
@sen5908
As you are mentioning your previous Mazda 6 2.2 and your current updated version of Mazda 3 which is I supose e-skyactive X 186 HP
It would help to know some first hand experience and differences.
If your 2.2 engine was 2014 or newer Skyactive-G turbo diesel with 110KW / 150 PS I know it pulls really good with its 380 Nm. In the other hand, e-SkyactiveX has 186 PS and 240 Nm but both are 0 - 100 Km/h about 8s.
Does the e-skyactiveX " feels" sluggish or like people say that X186 doesnt seem like it has all that " horses"?
Mazda 2.2 110Kw engine is really torquey and pleasurable to drive so basically I am wondering will e-skyactiveX 186 seem underpowered and be dissapointing experience if one switches to it?
And one more, how many Kms have you made with it so far and did you have any reliability issues, or malfunctions what so ever?
Thank you!
@@vfr5158 The X doesn't feel sluggish, BUT you do have to get it reving high before you change gear, if you want it to be anywhere near the diesel 2.2, i did have the last diesel ever made for that car, i bought it brand new, and unbelievably I needed new injectors at 4000 miles, most probably because I wasn't doing the mileage, my Mazda 3 hasn't caused me any issues at all, I do have a lot of extras on the vehicle, although expensive it totally transforms the vehicle, front lower air dam, side skirts, black mirror caps, rear bumper diffuser thing, and another roof spoiler, on top of the standard one, the car looks so good, the ride of the car is excellent, and the stop start is seamless, you can't even hear it starting up again, mine has black alloys, and full leather, I have covered 9000 miles in the vehicle, the kit was fitted by the dealer and is all Mazda official parts
I got a skyactiv x mazda 3 sedan two weeks ago. I drove it mostly in the city (Zagreb) and got to about 700km so far with avg consuption at 8.1 l/100km. I expected more for the fresh engine and a bit aggresive driving I was doing mostly outside of the city, and this was a nice surprise. About 20% of the driving was on the highway just to get the engine to feel higher revs on higher speeds. I'm not a stoplight racer and so far this car and engine has performed above expectations after I watched all the videos stating it doesn't seem as powerful as it says. At the highway (and in the city if you care about it and think about the revs) you can have any power you realistically need.
When I was buying a car the competition was Škoda Octavia 1.5TSI, and it while it does have that turbo kick in the lower revs and extra practicality because of the 5th door (which isn't a big factor for me at this time), they couldn't match the Mazda 3 sedan's interior quality and driving security gadgets for the price (HUD, rear camera, etc.), not to mention the looks. Also, the big factor was the EU vs Japan style of car selling where you have to wait for the custom Škoda Octavia for 4 months (if they don't already have one that you like at the dealership, which they don't), while with Mazda you don't have to choose because it already has it all.
Completely same thing. I bought mine Mazda 3 Skyactive X one month ago, done around 3000 km until now. Combined driving around 6-6,2 litres and I am not gentle with the throttle. I basically have consumption of my Yaris with 99 hp, maybe few decilitres more. It is true, there is no turbo and there is no kick, but it is a nonsense to said that this car doesn't have power, because believe me it does. Thing is, what I think Mazda tried with this, that car is comfortable and joy to cruise, not to do drag races and it does it's job superbly. I had to respond on this, because also my first choice was Škoda Octavia 1.5 TSI. Practicality is on the side of Škoda and I didn't have opportunity to do a test drive, but I examined it from inside in detail. Škoda did great job with interior, but new 3 is in the league of it's own!
you should have bought a car with more HP, like the one with 140ks or more, not that "SUV" , tbh, regular mazda 3 sedan is a much better vehicle on the inside. My M6 is doing ~8.2 around town. With atmo petrol 2.0, 140ks.
Može li neka recenzija ili mišljenje nakon skoro 1 god od komentara ili neko drugi?
Baš mi treba neki tako manji auto za po Zg radnim tjednom i vikendom za 90% autoputa.
@@mariot.5178 Nemam previše za dodati. Prošao sam oko 13k km i auto je još uvijek kao nov i gušt mi je svaki put kada sjednem u njega. U gradu troši između 8 i 8.5, a vozim se uglavnom u špici. Na otvorenoj cesti je odličan u svakom pogledu, a potrošnja ide od 4.5 do 7 ovisno o stilu vožnje. Ali ako bih kupovao auto samo za grad vjerojatno mi ovaj nebi bio prvi izbor nego bih gledao nešto sa manjim turbo motorom.
got mine 6 months ago, clocked about 9k so far. Coming from FR leon (2018) with 7speed dsg and a 1.5tsi, its a completely different experience. Eu cars are massive, sturdy, they always let you know where the center of mass is and help you understand how to use it to your advantage. Mazda on the other hand feels light, its not as easy to feel weight distribution while in motion but then again you dont actually need it - the car is very happy to oblige to drivers requests with not too sharp but precise response. Feels agile enough in higher revs, AT( torque converter) is no dsg but does seem a bit more refined at lower speeds. No false intakes, plastic covers, parts from other brands in it. Simply feels like a well rounded product. Feels civilized.
Mazda 3 122HP MT, 8000km, 7.1l/100km 😊
What average speed in town with consumption 12l\100km ?
Probably around 10-14km/h.
Ai condus varianta imbunatatita a motorului X, cea cu 186 CP si 240 Nm cuplu?
Should the new 186bhp engine have a known knocking sound or not ?
This dude should learn to drive before reviewing cars on the internet...
check out this review of the skyactiv x. i didn't get the impression it wasn't refined or quiet. perhaps things have changed in the last 3 years.
link was auto-censored
The next best in class gets 40 MPG on the highway. 20 MPG is pretty much average for that size. SkyActiv-X works like a regular gas engine under acceleration, so you are not going to see improvements there. A 25% increase in cruising efficiency for NA over a turbo is no laughing matter.
Just test drove one of these today and I have to agree - it doesn't feel like it has 180HP. It doesn't have a lot of torque considering I thought they might use the mild hybrid to boost the low end and the high end it is nothing special either. I've driven the 120HP G engine and preferred it.
I just got myself a Mazda CX30 G25. I think that's the engine to go with for now. I would have loved to try a skyactiv X version but the 4k premium in Australia that gives you this engine just isn't worth it in any way whatsoever. The skyactiv G engines have proved themselves to quite reliable already as well, whereas you never know with the X engine, although I trust Mazda in this respect. Also, they only offer the mild hybrid tech with the X in Australia and I wonder if that is to make it seem like the engine really is more efficient than the G25, which is still only slightly less efficient.
Maybe because the engine‘s behaviour is this from a suction engine?
e o chestie la motoarele aspirate..deobicei se "deschid" dupa ce faci cu ea vreo 10-15.000 km...atunci devine mai alestic, mai rapid, mai fin...plus ca e-skyactiv x-ul din 2021 se presupune a fi mai rapid decat skyactive x din 2019-2020. Dar tot asa...trebuie sa treaca niste KM sa fie potentialul maxim al motorului...am intalnit asta la orice aspirata...
5:45 - I much appreciate you explanation concerning the GPF (Gasoline Particle Filter) used to purify the EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) branch, that's massive, that's forcing the engine to burn a 30:1 AFR (Air to Fuel Ratio) mixture that's indeed, incredibly lean. Can you please tell more about the electric supercharger? I guess the air it is forcing into the EGR loop is fresh air containing 21% oxygen. Or not ?
Any info? 😮
I have the exact same car. consumes 10-11 L/100.... a bit high and as you said doesn't feel like 180hp. Anyhow, still a lovely car
I like how mazda offers manual transmission with awd. Toyota switched to cvt and it is terrible to drive, MT + NA engine is way to go.
There is a corolla manual... and the engine in that hb. Is impressive
@@carlosmarquez3844 I think the Corolla, or maybe the Yaris is the only man. trans Toyota is gonna make in the U.S. I think only the Yaris.
@@filoIII I didn't quite understand your message
@@filoIII but there are many manual toyotas, tacomas, corolla, yaris gr, etc
Not in the US :(
Like many good products the problem usually is the consumer.
+10 CV and 16 Nm with the new software (Spirit 1.1) in 2021 .FREE
Mazda still hasn't put this in the 3 in the United States. We still only have the 2.5 G.
Good, 2.5l engine has more torque and it feels big time. They'd have to charge more for a slower version.
@@sic22l the excitement is in the fuel economy. Some people care about that a lot.
@No NameSkyactiv-X uses the same amount of fuel as Skyactiv-G. This engine is a massive failure.
@@sic22l wait for the 3.0X later
Are you mocking it?
No need, it's really no different than Skyactiv-G while being much more complicated and expensive.
Hello. Probably off topic. Did the drive was made somewhere in Vilcea County? Anyway. Good job on the review. There are few on youtube that actually say something bad about anything. I am looking forward to buy a CX-30. What would be your choice(G122vsX186) considering that I will drive it mostly outside of the city(70-30?! ratio)? Thanks in advance.
Have you got a cx 30 yet? I got the X variant, and it is awesome, smooth, quiet, refined.
Rica etsem altyazı seçeneklerine Türkçe dil seçeneği ekleyebilir misiniz ? Sizi anlamak ve takip etmek istiyorum !!!
I drove the x and it was enjoyable but I will pick g for the fact that the dealer insists that I use high octane due to this high compression ratio otherwise it will jerk, I don't do the high oc thing because I don't buy it...I like it simple nice car ,regular fuel , enjoy!
I currently have a Mazda 3 skyactic x 2WD with 90,000 km on the clock. And it's true what you say. I drove exclusively on the highway at 120km/h, the result is 6L/100km. And now I only drive in town and it's terrible, she drinks too much. On top of that, I have the I-Stop which doesn't work for me. I'm a little disappointed with this car
You could recommend Dacia Sandero for city drive - low fuel consumption and max speed 160 km/h; high suspension for bad roads...
Man you are soooo wrong I have skyactive x , you need to learn to use it , engine is great
Thanks for posting an honest review of the Mazda 3. I think some of the comments are VERY unfair. You are giving your opinion and English is not your first language so you may phrase somethings not quite as a native speaker but you are clear in what you say so we'll done. 😉
Worth pointing out that Mazda offers this alongside the SkyActiv-G 2.5 in some markets, which is stupid. The 2.5 is cheaper, has the same power output, and is smoother due to balance shafts. In the UK, the two engines aren't available on the same models, so you have to choose the X version unless you're happy with a 120bhp SkyActiv-G 2.0. And there's more of a focus on fuel economy and emissions here.
I’m a little worried about the reliability and longevity of the Mazda’s because of the new things they’re doing. What do you think? Do you think Mazda comes close to that “Toyota and Honda Reliability” ?
Kyle Myrick I have 2014 mazda3 skyactiv G at almost 80,000 miles. No problem whatsoever. The only maintenance other than regular oil change are changing brake pads and one time tune up.
When I was in the auto repair industry we had 4 CX-5s come in with 350,000-450,000KM (We're in Canada) on them, original engines in all of them, sounded great. They are reliable now, they all had 2.0 or 2.5 SKYACTIV G engines 6 Automatics. I switched to Mazda from Honda after the 1.5 Turbo Civic I had, had multiple issues. No regrets SKYACTIV Generation Mazdas are relaible. Toyota is part owner of Mazda now.
You also know that Toyota is the largest stakeholder in Mazda now? They are starting to co-develop automotive technology.
2017 3, 83k miles on it. 45 or 50 were mostly done from day 1 for a pizza place. The engine can take a beating. Also my friend has a scion iA ....250k on it, all hard miles. Same engine
138,000 miles in My 2.5 Skyactiv-G turbo
its made for grocery shopper, not racing. the main goal is to create diesel like fuel economy in remaining gasoline engine market. mazda slows down the death of gasoline engine. without mazda gasoline engine will be replaced by hydrogenfuelcell or batteryEV within dozon years.
They failed to provide what you said. It uses the same amount of fuel as a much cheaper Skyactiv-G.
@@sic22l the x mode only kick in if u are cruising 60-80kph if i remember reading somwhere.
@redhongkong
Maybe that was an early prototype. Because if that's the case now it makes Skyactiv-X even more useless.
The way you talk about consommation isn't right. I have a 3 Skyactiv X 186Hp. Mixte roads / highway and city never more than 6.5 L with a soft drive style. I'have done till now 55000Km/h, it's super cool car and from far away the best for this price range. I leaved my Mercedes GLA 200 for the Mazda 3, and never have a single regret.
Having owned my Mazda3 e-Skyactiv-X (MT) for 3 weeks now, I've had a chance to test the fuel consumption and the car is capable of returning 5l/100km (or 55mpg - imperial) on the highway driven at the speed limit (i.e. 100-120 km/h). Obviously, it is not so good in town (6.5-7.5l/100km, or 35-40mpg), and in this situation a self-charging hybrid still makes more sense. Nonetheless, that Mazda have developed a 2.0 petrol engine capable of scrambling this far up the slope of diesel economy is astonishing.
The problem is that the engine is for people that normale buy a diesel amd drive on the highway and got 1l/19km so its just you drive to much on power instead of torq you just used to turbo engines amd there turbo push
It uses the same amount of gas as my 2010 V6 GLK 😳
Bro im sorry, to post this here but could you do a video about audi's multitronic, i have an a5 2008 fwd with it and i think as well as a lot of viewers to see the opinion of someone with your knowledge
Te încurajez să-ți faci și un canal în filipineză
By hearing this.
you can rather try the Suzuki swift sport ''The 1.6 one'' not the newest generation.
Same fuel consumption here in Bucharest (13.5l/100km):
ruclips.net/video/X1ncBJKuO5Q/видео.html
If you don't drive it in a city like this and have small fuel consumption, idk why you hate he.
ATTENTION MAZDA OWNERS *
Though not advertised , 2014 -2022 Mazda has a CALL BACK due to premature failure of vacume pump that will push engine oil into intake manifold ( and its a dealership part only )
They used a rubber seal that gets destroyed by the oil/ gasoline . The fix turned out to be silicone seal instead . Vacume pumps will eventually fail and you will get oil in the intake manifold .
ALSO call back due to fuel tank venting fixed with a computer update to keep the vent open all the time .
So tell me again how great Skyactiv is…
I agree, engine is nothing special. They are comparing it to diesel engine but there is no torque nor power. I do not understand how come 190ps car can be so slow and an top not even close to diesel consumption.
It is plenty powerful, never had an issue passing a car or accelerating from a stand still and I even have the slower auto trans.
It's a comfortable daily driver with a really smooth powerband, not a racer or an autobahn cruicer.
I don't really get what you are expecting from this engine but it realy does deliver what it is suposed to deliver.
PS:You can't really compare gassoline and disel 1/1 as disel by itself is 15% more energy dense, meaning that even if your gass engine is as efficiant it will stil burn 15% more volume of fule than a disel.
It produces 185hp at 6.8l/100klms. Find another engine that do that and then make up your mind again about the engine or your point of view
well, the 165G makes 165 and consumes 6.5l/100 in reality. It might be a bit weaker but it revs up quicker. The point was, the X didn't bring that much in reality what we expected with high-tech
Basically it is a hybrid? No it is a MILD hybrid. You haven't given anu real arguments.
Come on who want to be guinea pig for a new engine
Ba Razvane ce hate ti-ai luat
Da sa mor ,asta citeam si eu 😂😂
Ai uitat romana? :)))))
de ce ar trebui sa vorbeasca in romana? :)
Că de ce nu :))
Ba asta e canalu in engleza
I bought one of these SkyactivX models after owning a 2015 Mazda 3, but the new one was not the AWD model. I was disappointed from the off, it's terrible. The one I test drove seemed ok, but that was a couple of miles in urban conditions. I paid a £1,500 premium for this engine but it was gutless and I had to use a lower gear than I expected, so where I would normally use second in any other car I've driven, and that is dozens, I had to drop down to first. It's been back to Mazda 4 times (two different dealers). The first one didn't even acknowledge that there was a problem, so I took it elswhere. They have gradually improved it to where it is just about passable, but NEVER 180 BHP. I still have a massive 'hiccup' and a 'holding back' feel at times when accelerating, and it doesn't feel nice to drive. At the end of my patience I complained to Mazda Consumer Relations who basically said that there was nothing wrong with the car, end of. So it's going, with only 9,000 miles on the clock. Lovely car otherwise, but a massive FAIL on the engine. Bye, bye Mazda, I'm going electric, and even that won't be a Mazda.
Hi I'm going to look at one of these, should I not bother
@sen5908 Get skyactive. G122 and tune it with software and you'll get easily 165hp don't even bother with other engines
I have test driven this car and had the same impression. It's lame and not terribly efficient. I walked off disappointed.
To be fair: the launch was absolutely horrible, so no comparison to do.
2015 skyactiv g 165 20k 6L/100km
You left 1500RPM on the table...
i hope you know that when I see the likes and dislikes disabled, i just click away
I have this car
It’s a wonderful car the failure is you
didnt mazda recall all skyactiv-x engined cars ?
Rotwolf For reasons that don’t concern the wngine
The reveiw is a fail, the skyactive X is still in dev. I don't beleive it's in mass production yet. I didnt see anything about the different drive modes that skyactive X goes thru in different conditions.
It's in production since last year, lol.
If Mazda and Toyota share their skyactiv-x and hybrid synergy drive technology, I guarantee they will hands down takeover the auto industry
I am a firm believer
Keep one eye for a nighttime job!..... just in case.
Everyone speaks about speed and its a bad car and blah blah , what if u dont wanna speef and u always drive around 60-80 and sometimes when u get out of town and get like 100 -110 max , i will assume u will see not difference ?!
Unless you own the car for 1-2 weeks you cannot speak about consumption. My fuel economy is 5.0lt/100kmh on 3rh long trips, and 6.9lt/100kmh in the city, you obviously ignore the car's systems on swapping gears and you start stop like Red light racer to get 12lt/100kmh in the city!?? Telling people to go for an older engine defeats the purpose of what Mazda is doing and saying and if I had to go with your word or the actual mechanics that made it? Well I would go with their info. Also, after 2.000kmh the engine changes. Any Mazda 3 owner knows what I am talking about. As for the power. Yes you don't get to feel the torque when you swap gears on 4000 rpm.... It's a NA engine. Also, saying you are dissapointent because it is not as "powerful" as you thought it would be? Good, it is not a performance car. You can get the i30N with the same money give up on all smart systems and fuel economy and go lile a madman with crackling exhaust noises as you rev it to max , but then you would be dissapointent of the cheap plastic in the interior and the clanky info screen. Not all cars are built for all purposes. The Mazda 3 aims to enter the more premium category and so far it does. I bet that gen 5 of the Mazda 3 will see an increase on price, now they ar etesting the grounds and the market and what they offer in terms of quality, reliability and smart systems, surpases that of it's competitors, VW Golf, Skoda Octavia, Mercedes A, BMW1 etc. With 29.000 euros it simply is the most offering.
so 4 months ago i did right decision about engine selection, went thru many reviews and plus feedback from seller guy who said no point go for X so i bought G🙂
if I may ask, is the G also a mild-hybrid?
@@Markuden...yes
@@Markuden i can give any info and opinion as user :-)
@@RobSinox thanks! You have automatic transmission? And what kind of fuel usage do you get?
@@Markuden
I got manual... 2000cc petrol
done 4000 miles and fuel consumption is 41mpg easy...
motorway only about 44mpg..
Hmm, learn More differences about G and X engines. And you have To learn To drive that X engines, i know many X engines drivers Who drives under 4,5l avg.
Very detailed and informative. My only suggestion to you is to SMILE MORE!! Pretend that you truly enjoy reviewing automobiles. It will keep us in tuned with you.
detonation and knock to be used? guy has no idea about engines
You are to small and bad driver to speak about mazda skyactive x engine. Please just drive the Japanese experience.
You behave like a poor guy who is only interested in less consumption! How can you expect both more power and less fuel consumption??? Even having the same fuel consumption as the 122HP engine is really good for a 180HP engine!
It gives niether. It's as slow as the 150hp 2.0 skyactiv-G while using the same amount of fuel but it costs much more. It cannot touch 1.5 TSI in both performance and fuel consumption.
Review failed 🎉
iliescu
you have no idea what you are talking about.
Mazda ❤️❤️❤️❤️
Another ev guy trying to put some nonsense arguments over a inovated car engine...
daca vorbeai romaneste erea mai bine
Mazda fail? 😂
Your video is a failure not the car
You're driving the engine? Really? Not the car?... Wow... "Torque converted"? Maybe torque convertor.. You speak English the way you named your channel.... 66% ok
He is clearly not a native speaker. What’s important is you understand him in general.
Gigi cel smart.. Prostul satului
@@GreatGrandmasterWang he failed to review, both lingually and practically.
He speaks English well enough.! And what other language do you speak apart from English?