We’ve been waiting with bated breath for finalised details of Mazda’s novel SkyActiv-X engine, and Hiroshima has finally given us the lowdown. The Spark Plug Controlled Compression Ignition (SPCCI) mill, which is now on sale in Europe in the new Mazda 3, promises to deliver the free-revving performance of a petrol engine and the torque and fuel efficiency of a diesel, and these figures make for interesting reading.
The 2.0 litre petrol engine delivers 180 PS at 6,000 rpm and 224 Nm of torque at 3,000 rpm, figures that compare favourably to the 155 PS and 199 Nm produced by the regular 2.0 litre SkyActiv-G. Notably, peak torque arrives 1,000 rpm lower for the SkyActiv-X mill, which should result in punchier in-gear acceleration.
And while the compression ratio is rated at a heady 16.3:1, the engine can still run on regular RON 95 petrol, not some high-octane unobtanium fuel. It is paired to a choice of six-speed SkyActiv-MT manual and SkyActiv-Drive automatic transmissions, with an i-Activ all-wheel drive system available as an option.
SkyActiv-X models also come as standard with Mazda M Hybrid, a 24-volt mild hybrid system that recuperates kinetic energy to power an electric motor that assists during acceleration. Put that all together and Mazda claims a combined fuel consumption figure of as low as 5.4 litres per 100 km is possible (front-wheel drive manual sedan with the smaller 16-inch wheels) – and that’s on the more stringent WLTP cycle.
With an automatic gearbox and larger 18-inch wheels that we usually get here, this figure goes up to 6.2 litres per 100 km (6.3 litres per 100 km on the hatchback), which is still an impressive feat. Carbon dioxide emissions, meanwhile, are as low as 122 grams per kilometre on the combined cycle.
In case you need a refresher, the SkyActiv-X engine features compression ignition typically found in diesel engines, enabling the use of a much leaner air-fuel ratio provided through a supercharger. It still employs spark plugs to control the ignition timing, allowing for the use of compression ignition in a much broader range of conditions (up to 90% of the time, Mazda claims).
The technology is so effective, the company says, that the 2.0 litre SkyActiv-X engine’s fuel efficiency equals or even exceeds that of the 1.5 litre SkyActiv-D diesel engine. The mill is also claimed to offer improved response and between 10 to 30% more torque compared to the 2.0 litre SkyActiv-G engine, which Mazda says is equivalent to the larger 2.5 litre motor.
Our Bahasa Malaysia colleagues have driven a prototype version of the SkyActiv-X engine, and you can read the translated version here.
GALLERY: 2019 Mazda 3
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
Those are quite impressive figures for a normally aspirated (NA) engine. Especially the fuel consumption. Of course a smaller displacement turbo engine can do better performance figures, though the real world fuel consumption figures probably won’t match the bigger NA engine.
Not NA la. It is supercharged.
Can we call this NA? I’m not arguing, just asking, like it’s not ‘natural’…
It’s not NA. It has a supercharger. But, the supercharger’s main function is to lean out the mixture of AFR (it runs on something like 1:29) Without the forced induction there wouldn’t be enough fuel to turn the engine over. It’s an ultra lean burn engine, only without the associated loss of power and torque which SCCI solves.
What naturally aspirated? It has a supercharger. It is clearly written in the article.This is still consider a forced induction engine.
Civic 1.5 turbo can develop almost the same horsepower as the 2.0 Mazda 3. Civic is more superior with smaller displacement yet same power.
My Toyota cars are better. Businessmen go for Camry cars while the stupid ah bengs go for Hondas
Honda China still can’t resolve the fuel leakage to engine compartment issue…Lol
Skyactiv X is mazda’s attempt to use HCCI, commonly known as Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition. HCCI allows a far higher thermodynamic efficiency in an ICE over conventional spark ignition. This allows the engine to consume far less fuel. Another feature of HCCI is that it works like a Diesel engine that allows instantaneous combustion, and therefore achieves higher torque with less fuel. Less fuel combusted means less CO2 released, and thus better for the environment. This is the holy grail of internal combustion technology which only Mazda achieved while mighty car makers failed.
For those thinking hybrids, PHEV are cleaner and better for the environment, don’t be delusional. Mining Lithium, which itself is finite and insufficient to power all cars globally is far destructive. Many publications has proven that producing Li ions is far more damaging to the environment than burning fossil fuels.
Fossil fueled cars will be around and will still constitute 95% of total cars globally in 2030.
The Civic requires higher octane fuel to work at its best. The Skyactiv-X actually runs better with lower octane fuel (Mazda says it work best with RON ~80). The SCCI engine has an effortlessly broad torque curve and the fuel consumption is not as affected by engine RPM. You can cruise at a lower gear (or stay at a lower gear longer climbing uphill or readying for an overtake) with minimal fuel economy loss. SCCI is in a class of its own, whereas Honda just succumbed to market pressure from the Europeans and Ford.
for a truly fair comparison, you should be comparing against NA engines with 1.7 times bigger displacement than your 1.5 turbo- something like 2.5/2.6L.
Can civic get this kind of fuel consumption? Stupid H fanboy
Alamak! Still hugging the old tech burning dinosaur juice.
Yea use ev. Powered by coal
This is the future, with high compression ratio, better thermal efficiency.
And where do you think you get the energy to make batteries? From fairies??
Skyactiv-G maintenance already higher than other Japs. This Skyactiv-X + Hybrid should easily cost you a hand in some major service. Beware!
Now Bermaz gives 5 years/100k KM free maintenance , and after that servicing cost same like my Toyota. From a 2014 Mazda 3 owner..
Really? Proof please and not street talk
nice try honda/toyota salesman. mazda service 3 or 5 years free….even so no major problems after that
Says someone drives a Proton Wira (or similar)
Its funny when some Malaysian hate Mazda even when they never even tried to drive one. Malaysian only worship T and H, while other countries are praising Mazda. Mazda accomplished what others failed to do, optimising NA engine. Others opt for easier alternative which is small turbo. And some recent reports showed that small turbo car are not as efficient as they marketed. NA engine is not outdated, what outdated is our country roadtax system.
skyactive = carbon deposit @ knock knock
Wait this skyactiv-x can go up to 6.2l/100km for the 18inch sedan variant. The current Mazda 3 fuel consumption is 5.8l/100km. How come the new one the fuel consumption is higher? Can anyone explain this
It’s tested under the new WLTP cycle, which was made to closer mimic real driving. They take data from real fuel economy figures and surveys to create this new standard. The test is longer, more dynamic, and done at higher speeds and takes into account different gear shift points and other factors such as equipment level and emissions. If it was tested using NDEC it would show a much lower fuel consumption which would be very difficult to achieve in the real world.
The figure you quoted is on the old NEDC cycle, which is less strict and doesn’t take into account different wheel sizes. Converted to the NEDC cycle, the SkyActiv-X engine is actually capable of delivering 4.3 litres per 100 km combined.
2nd paragraph should be 224Nm instead of rom?
Skyactiv has always made outlandish claims on performance and fuel efficiency which doesn’t work in real life. The 2015 Fuelly numbers for Forte 2.0, Civic 2.0 and Mazda 2.0 Skyactiv are exactly alike both on efficiency and HP. Never can take them seriously.
Really? I owed 2 skyactiv models, a CX5 and 6, both using 2.5 engine. I found their fuel consumption really reasonable, more so with the sedan for obvious reasons. When I compared my CX5 2.5 model FC with my friends driving the latest CRV 1.5T, city driving is better for CX5 while comparable to slightly better in highways for CRV.
Please quote real data, not anecdotes. Compare with actual calculated figures, not “finding it reasonable vs your friends”. Fuelly records fuel consumption based on real-life use by thousands of drivers worldwide.
Technically a forced induction engine, BUT unlike typical turbo charger, more air mean more fuel added to combust, this forced induction is to add more air to lean out the fuel.
Bermaz, where is MRCC in our Mazda? You build your car with MRCC here and export to Thailand. How about us? We dont deserve MRCC? How come Proton, Honda, Nissan can give ACC?
You have mistakenly park a Mazda 3 article under Kia category.