Mazda SkyActiv-X M engine technology goes on sale

Should you pay the extra money to buy Mazda’s new SkyActiv-X mild hybrid tech? If you’re shopping for a Mazda 3 or CX-30 and are considering this new engine, here’s what you need to know…

---

As you know, I’m all about the facts.

So let’s discuss whether there’s a compelling case for you to part with your funds required to obtain the new SkyActiv-X M Hybrid engine technology.

Is it worth being an early adopter and reaping the benefits of Mazda’s awesome global engine innovation push? Or is it all smoke and mirrors?

See, unlike the sulking woe-is-me engineering going on over at Honda - where they used to be the pioneers of VTEC (which even I was a fan of) - Mazda isn’t moping around the house feeling sorry for itself. And I want to make it clear, what I’m about to say about the new SkyActiv-X is not an attempt to sink the boot into Mazda’s wedding vegetables. In fact, it’s the opposite - Mazda’s brainiacs are part of few brands actually still innovating and pushing the engineering envelope. But sometimes the marketing department can get a bit self-indulgent.

Paraphrasing, Mazda suggests SkyActiv-X is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Let’s see if that’s true, shall we?

(And here’s some background homework if you need to catch up on the Mazda HCCI SkyActiv backstory >>)

---

How does it work?

Essentially, it works like a diesel engine, at least that’s the goal of compression ignition, which is easy to do with diesel because the nature of the fuel is predisposed to burning predictably in a compression ignition environment.

Petrol, not so much. In fact, it’s hard to ensure reliable combustion in a lean mixture in a compression ignition environment - it’s difficult to get it to behave predictably.

There are two modes of operation:

• First mode is like every other spark-ignition internal combustion petrol engine, pretty much on the planet - we don’t need to cover that.

• The second mode is a lean-burn spark compression mode. Imagine an engine running very slow. The piston comes up, valves close, mixture is squeezed and just before the really lean mixture has the spark plug fired upon it, the injector sprays a tiny squirt of fuel right around the spark plug.

So the lean mixture becomes rich, then the spark plug fires and that mixture around the spark plug begins to burn. And that process begins the rapid expansion and causes a pressure rise in the rest of the chamber. This pressure rise causes the lean part of the mixture to burn.

Now, people will use false terms like “shockwave” and “explosion”, which are bullshit. This is the process of deflagration (a subsonic burning process), not detonation (a supersonic exothermic front).

Anyway, when you look at the run-of-the-mill SkyActiv 2.0-litre engine in CX-5, Mazda3, CX-30 - 114kW and 200Nm - same size engine, with no turbocharger, in the new SkyActiv-X engine power goes up to 132kW and torque goes up to 224Nm. That’s a substantial improvement, economy improves as well, no doubt.

Unfortunately, Mazda isn’t selling the SkyActiv-X technology against the conventional 2.0-litre (found in Pure and Maxx models), it’s selling it in Astina trim - against the 2.5-litre engine.

The 2.5-litre engine performs better: 138 peak kiloWatts (small but an improvement) and 252 peak Newton-metres. And here’s my first problem:

• You will pay $3000 more for the SkyActiv-X Astina, and it’s not going to go as well.

So you might say to yourself: I’ll take the fuel economy improvement up front and recoup the cost in incremental fuel saving over time. That’s an economically rational argument and I just crunched the numbers on that…

SkyActiv-X (2.0-litre) uses a claimed 5.3 litres per 100km;

And 6.5 litres per 100km for the 2.5-litre engine. The difference is 1.2 L/100km. But there’s one pesky little detail to factor in.

The 2.5-litre engine is okay running on e10 (or even 91 fuel), which is a lot cheaper than the 95 RON minimum required by the SkyActiv-X.

The average price of those fuels in Sydney today is going to cost $7.65 for every 100km you drive in the conventional 2.5-litre engine, and $7.07 for every 100km driven in the SkyActiv-X 2.0-litre engine.

Five simple fuel-saving hacks

1. Drive a smaller vehicle. (Less weight = less fuel burned)

2. Ditch unnecessary weight. (Less weight etc)

3. Drive conservatively: hard acceleration/braking will suck more fuel than gentle modulation

4. Optimal tyre pressures; reduce rolling resistance.

5. Regular servicing

So you’ll save 58 cents every 100km using the new SkyActiv-X engine. So how far do you have to drive in order to break even on your $3000 expenditure to obtain that new engine tech?

Half a million kilometres. Half a million kays just to break even on spending the extra $3000.

And that evaporates the cost-saving argument, as far as I’m concerned. And one caveat: yes, fuel prices vary. But not in such a wild variation to reduce half a million kilometres to anything significant. And there’s always a substantial difference in price between e10 and 95 RON.

Clean air for our cities is a fair reason for wanting to go down this path. To that idea, I would say, buy a smaller car, reduce the aggression to which you drive.

---

The H Word

So, we’ve established there’s essentially no rational case for the SkyActiv-X over the normal Mazda powertrain, other than wanting to reduce fuel consumption, in which case buying a smaller car is the more rational argument.

But there’s another dimension to this new technology: marketing.

Should you buy a hybrid in 2020? >>

Don’t be seduced by the Mazda M Hybrid system, which I think is a fairly cynical exercise. Here’s why…

Compact and efficient, the mild hybrid system features a belt-driven integrated starter generator (ISG) and a 24V lithium-ion battery.

It supports greater gains in fuel economy by recycling energy recovered during deceleration and powering the ISG, functioning as an electric motor, to assist the engine.

-Mazda Australia

Now, I would say yeah, that’s all true. Only, there’s not much assistance going on at all.

I get the feeling that in the background, they just want to use the word ‘hybrid’ in their communications to compete with the likes of Prius, RAV4 hybrid, Subaru’s hybrids or maybe Hyundai Ionic/Kona - which are dedicated hybrids with big batteries and electric motors fully integrated into the powertrain.

If you see Mazda M Hybrid in the marketing communications it’s not the same thing. The gains are terribly small and at the very best, it’s a “mild hybrid” as Mazda says. but it’s really an inconsequential hybrid. Not a proper hybrid. It’s more like an alternator with a 24-volt battery - the kind of science experiment you expect Year 12 STEM students to know at an intimate level.

There’s no electrical contribution to the drivetrain like Ioniq or Kona, Outlander PHEV, Toyota RAV4 or Subaru’s XV or Forester hybrids.

What I’d suggest, if you do want to jump in, wait until they offer the SkyActiv-X M tech on the 2.5-litre engine because that’ll offer better performance. It’s probably gonna cost $5000 more, but that’s worth it, people appreciate superior performance - that’s a meaningful gain and justified by the cost.

I also really want to see how this engine goes in-secretive, because Mazda has a chequered history introducing clever, promising new engine technology which does poorly off the bat.

They did the same thing with the SkyActiv-D 2.2-litre diesel engines, which had several premature failures due to oil dilution problems. And I think they handled that problem pretty well - they certainly didn’t behave like Ford and failed to give a shit. Mazda did something about it. (Pro Tip: That’s how you stop your brand’s reputation turning to shit).

So, wait six months. Let someone else test the product in-service and let Mazda’s propellerheads to solve those problems. And I’m not saying it will happen, it’s just a risk. That way you can pay your premium, reap the performance benefits, and not be a lab rat.

Have your say