"I think though that manufacturers are learning their lesson on this though, although the current stupid EU emissions rules (including corporate CO2 limits and fines) and tests are hampering car manufacturers using the most appropriate engines for the size and likely use of their cars - more so for makes (like Mazda) that still use N/A engines."
I'm not an engineer, but I would have thought that the economy of normally-aspirated engines would suffer less when they are driven harder to compensate for extra weight.
Cretainly the economy of the 2-litre petrol in my CX-5 doesn't seem to suffer unduly with four people and a bit of luggage, as I found last summer on a fairly lengthy jaunt.
Bear in mid that your 2 ltr engine has already been uprated from the 120hp in the 3 to 165hp in the CX-5, though being a larger and heavier car with a higher drag factor it still is 1.5sec slower to 60. It should be noted that both have the same torque of 155 ft-lbs, so, in theory, it should be easier to make smooth progress yours than the 3 (in standard form). Judging by the reviews of the 3 in 165hp form, it seems not to be the case in that car, though possibly in yours.
My point was more about car manufacturers deliberately de-rating certain engines to fit the corporate CO2 limits, which often has degraded (sometimes significantly) the driving experience of certain engines - my 3's mk1 1.6 petrol was modified twice by Mazda to reduce its CO2 from 172g/km in mine to 149 in the facelifted version in March 2006 (but which increased the 0-60 time from 11.2sec to ~11.7sec [I saw this in the blurb - the HJ review figure is the older one]) and again to 144g/km and about 12.2-12.5sec in the mk2 in 2009.
Similar things were done to the 2.0 petrol as well, making both not exactly quick, and even taking into account the economy at the time, sales of the 3 slumped and have never recovered. Mazdas are seen as great handling cars, but without any MPS versions, none outside the MX-5 are seen as being anything other than 'not bad' in terms of performance. I think if they could match the VAG and latest Honda engines in their new HCCI engines, then this will be a big sales boon IF they get the reliability and costs right.
As regards other cars being a bit 'slow, I think it shows why many are now going the TSi route such as Hyundai/KIA, whose cars had a 'worthy but slow' reputation when (I think) they used their N/A engines (but not VTEC or similar, which is what my 3 uses) in most of their petrol-engined cars. The same, as I stated in my previous post, has gone for many small and mid-sized hatches with small capacity TD engines. I think too many were focussed (pardon the pun) too heavily on fuel economy (with only one occupant an no boot load, driving sedately around) and not enough of a balance of that and on performance, particularly from a standstill and the 30-70mph range for overtaking, as well as adequately dealing with a fully-loaded car.
Some I've driven or been driven in just run out of puff and sometimes are downright dangerous when you need to put your foot down - pulling out of a junction into fast-moving traffic or onto a large roundabout on a dual carriageway, or overtaking on single-lane national speed limit roads. Sometimes doing so in such cars is no different to when my Dad used to own a 1.1 Ford Escort in the 1970s and that horrible 1.4 'lean burn' one in the early 90s.
|
