Talk:Skyactiv

Scientific / Technical basis for the claims

What are the scientific and technical innovations that for the basis for Mazda's claims of improved performance? Is this actually a technical innovation, or simply a marketing pitch? Have independent measurements verified specific performance improvements? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Beginner here so I apologize for the formatting. Increasing the compression increases the efficiency (per physics/thermodynamics manual) but more than that it's the fact that the engine functions as a variable compression engine in which the actual compression ratio is adapted to the demands. A light load works best with low compression and vice versa. So, the theory says IT SHOULD BE more efficient at both light and heavy loads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.201.8 (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Split Article

I feel that this article should be split into separate articles; i.e. Mazda SKYACTIV-G engine, Mazda SKYACTIV-D engine, etc. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question? Where would you put all the other ones?

 4 SkyActiv-Drive

 5 SkyActiv-MT

 6 SkyActiv-Body

 7 SkyActiv-Hybrid

 8 SkyActiv-CNG

 9 SkyActiv-R

10 SkyActiv-X

Telecine Guy (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is not long. I don't see any good reason for a split. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Manual Transmission entry lacking basic detail

The reference to manual transmission features makes comment on shift throws, etc. but leaves out any detail on the number of speeds and does not specify any ratios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding (talk • contribs) 02:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Diesel emissions

“ In the aftermath of the Volkswagen emissions scandal, the Japanese government performed testing of all diesel engines produced in Japan to ensure Japanese manufacturers were not falsifying emissions as had been done by Volkswagen. It was determined that the Skyactiv-D engine was the only engine which tested at or near the standard.”

This graph says otherwise

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#/media/File%3ANitrogen_oxide_on-road_emissions_by_manufacturer_and_capacity.svg 121.200.6.49 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This graph actually shows an Euro6 red line and "real world" (without details as to how the test was performed) NOx emissions.

Alhough I can frankly say I came across one defective SkyActiv-D engine (euro 2.2/150 on a Mazda 6) with a defective engine (multiple DPF alerts in the matter of months and near the end an insane thirst for diesel), I can't be certain as of why exactly that happened, except I recall its owner once added lubricating oil when the corresponding light popped without checking the level and the "fault" in fact was oil dilution due to the depollution strategy (post-injection in a too cold combustion chamber?), which is an issue already predented in the article (for which I'm not sure if anything serious has been done, still)

Anyways, the fact is low compression is the strategy used by everyone nowadays to reduse NOx emissions, as it reduces high temperature lean combustion, leading to NOx formation. EGR limits nitrogen content before ignition too, but may be responsible of carbon buildups, which are again mentioned in the article.

Conclusion? Plain and simple : depollution is what doesn't work, and it's not exactly an exclusivity of SkyActiv-D engines. If authorities really want to reduce emissions, they should firstly think of ways to reduce commuting. 77.131.35.94 (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Does a 3.0 Skyactiv exist?

Or was this speculation by media journalists upon interpreting a photo release by mazda (of three engines)? In March 2022, they seems to be certain that the petrol offering was three litre Sky-X but seven months later, in October 2022, Car Scoops (correctly) revealed that the petrol engine would be a 3.3 Sky-G. Perhaps the US is getting a special version in addition to the others? If there is no evidence of the existence of the 3.0, this should be scrubbed from the article. NotPedanticReally (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)