miataturbo.net-like debauchery thread (about the ND or something)
I wouldn't be surprised if they could extract 170-180hp from the ND with a 91+ octane only tune and a few simple performance modifications. That would make it really competitive.
Reply
0
0
If the weight comes in at 2250lbs and 155hp, it will still have a better power/weight ratio than the NC. However I would think it would be easy enough to put slightly bigger cams in the 2.0L to bump it up to the 167hp the NC made. That would give it 13.5 lbs/hp or so, right around the Toyubaru.
(Dynotronics just feels plain wrong).The 2.0 will most probably have a listed figure a few hp over the 2.0 in the NC, the actual measured difference can be whatever.
Or it will have a similar power boost as the Mazda3 got (11bhp) going from MZR to Skyactiv.
I have no problem with a 127bhp 1.5 in the EU, since the 2.0 will be sold as well. Only having a version with worse power/weight than a 1994 NA would not be smart marketing.
Last edited by NiklasFalk; Oct 2, 2014 at 12:21 PM.
Reply
0
0
Newb
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 37
Total Cats: 2
I took a dyno chart from a 155hp/150tq 2.0L SkyActive engine, converted it to Excel, and then manual played with the torque curve to shift it 600rpm higher in the rev range. I did this because a higher redline really suggests that Mazda would use more appropriately tuned intake and exhaust dimensions to support that extra RPM, and possibly cam differences.
It produces a pretty compelling number at ~154whp, which is about 170hp at the crank with the Mazda3's drivetrain losses. The ND's losses will be higher due to RWD vs FWD, driveshaft and all, but it should still make at least the 167hp mark of the NC if the 600rpm northward torque shift is anywhere close to accurate. If I underestimate the torque curve shift, it could easily climb up another 5-10hp.
It produces a pretty compelling number at ~154whp, which is about 170hp at the crank with the Mazda3's drivetrain losses. The ND's losses will be higher due to RWD vs FWD, driveshaft and all, but it should still make at least the 167hp mark of the NC if the 600rpm northward torque shift is anywhere close to accurate. If I underestimate the torque curve shift, it could easily climb up another 5-10hp.
Reply
1
1
Reply
0
0
Only our government could create a "market" for things they don't actually make, to protect the environment they have no control of, for a problem that doesn't exist.
Reply
9
9
Apparently the eco-weenies in 2015 are going to tack on 70 cents per gallon to our already crap fuel in California. It's the beauty of "carbon credits" for the mythical carbon "marketplace".
Only our government could create a "market" for things they don't actually make, to protect the environment they have no control of, for a problem that doesn't exist.
Only our government could create a "market" for things they don't actually make, to protect the environment they have no control of, for a problem that doesn't exist.
I wish I could +prop this post a few more times
amen
Reply
2
2
You know, I was actually talking about the USA (2.0L only choice ) vs. the rest of the World (1.5L and maybe a 2.0L option) when I mentioned open roads and deniers.
Interesting that it was understood as TX vs. the rest of the USA. LOL.
Interesting that it was understood as TX vs. the rest of the USA. LOL.
Reply
1
1
Reply
4
4
Reply
0
0
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 923
Total Cats: 67
Reply
0
0
I like the suggestion at the end. Lets tax people, then give it back to them as tax credit on their income tax.
Math tells me, its better to do nothing. Save some money...
Math tells me, its better to do nothing. Save some money...
Reply
0
0
