What is it?
This may look like a humble, if rather stylish hatchback, but there’s more to the Mazda 3 Skyactiv-X than meets the eye. Look under its bonnet and you’ll see, well, an awful lot of plastic actually. That’s because its 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol engine is enclosed in a ‘capsule’ to promote a faster warm-up that improves efficiency.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg, the really clever stuff involves what Mazda calls SPCCI or spark controlled compression ignition. Under light loads, a very lean fuel and air mixture is pushed into the cylinder under a diesel-like 16.3:1 compression ratio on the intake stroke. As the piston squishes everything, a small amount of a richer mixture is squirted near to the spark plug. Igniting this instantly raises pressure so the leaner mixture also ignites, burning cleaner and more efficiently. However, put your foot down and it operates like a regular petrol engine, at least, that’s the theory.
To further improve efficiency, there’s also a 24v mild hybrid system that uses a combined starter/generator to harvest energy when you’re slowing down. This can then be used to assist the engine when accelerating from a standstill, for instance. The end result is 178bhp without the use of a turbo, emissions from just 100g/km and official fuel economy of 51.4mpg. That’s rather impressive.
Those figures are for the six-speed manual with front wheel drive on 16in wheels. Four-wheel drive and an automatic gearbox are optional, while higher trims receive 18in wheels. Naturally, all these items make the 3 less efficient, with emissions rising to as high as 125g/km.
Join the debate
Add your comment
@si73
I enjoy a nice NA engine too, but I tried the 2.0 120ps in the current 3 and it was very disappointing. Throttle response wasn't great and it felt much much slower than my 1.8 Civic when on paper it should have been faster. The critical issue was gear ratios. I hope Mazda haven't lumbered the new 3 with overly long gearing because I'm not convinced it actually helps economy if you are having to work the engine harder to drive round the gearing.
Will86 wrote:
I think the newer cars get the worse throttle response is as it is all electronically controlled as opposed to a physical cable opening a butterfly etc, the crz I had came with eco normal and sport settings, all altered the throttle response with eco being lethargic in response to sport being instant, I didn't really like any of them as they felt slightly false but the engine behaved like a torquey na, an 8 valve as opposed to 16 valve, and that made it fun to drive but I do find nearly all modern cars, that I have driven, throttle response to be vague. Reminds of the fly by wire defenders that used the electronics to prevent wild throttle inputs when bouncing off road, that damped response is how modern cars feel to me, makes them easy to bog down when pulling away in heavy stop start traffic.
I may be alone but I see a
I may be alone but I see a lot to like, I like the styling of this car even though I do agree the C pillar is a bit big and the rear side window could easily have been bigger, that aside I still think it is an attractive car. The ride and handling seem pretty good from the review, even if not the best, but all that is subjective and I'd test drive and form my own conclusions there, and don't forget the focus and golf come with torsion beams. The interior is stunning and far superior in style to any of its competition, in my opinion, and the engine performs well with good economy, I like naturally aspirated engines and I like using the revs and changing gear to get performance as opposed to staying in a high gear and riding a turbocharged torque wave, just my preference, which is why I like the way Mazda have been keeping to large ish na engines.
si73 wrote:
I hear ya!
The Focus will probably still be best in class - the most practical and talented all-rounder. If over the shoulder visibility and / or carrying capacity are high priorities this new 3 clearly isn't the car for you.
If you like the style - many do - if you like the interior, if you still enjoy a revvy NA engine and slick manual and sporty handling, this is a convincing package that is almost in a class of one.
The Aussie test suggests 1,350 kg kerb mass. Still a bit porky but much better.
Not sure about the UK but over here a lot of the cars in traffic only have one or two passengers, so maybe there is a market for a sexier, less practical hatch.
I have the previous Mazda 3 and tried this
I have the previous model Mazda 3 and tried this new version in the showroom, then decided against a road test. Why?
The whole design suggests to me that Mazda are looking at this as a Coupe and are marketing the forthcoming CX30 as the more likely family car, probably with a greater profit margin.
Bar room lawyer wrote:
Yep, Mazda did the same thing with the Astina back in the 90s (which still looks great IMO). You and your son would probably fit into a CX-5. I'm 176 cm, my son is 98 cm, and I'm glad every car isn't designed to fit every person, so we can still buy something low, sporty and sexy!
Agreed
Yep when the first pictures appeared it reminded me of the DS4 and how difficult it was to get in the rear. At 5ft 10 you might suffer broken ribs but at 5ft my 10 year old would probably have fractured a skull getting in. I got slated for those comments and vomit inducing rear accommodation but I feel redemption now.
Awful design for family 5 door hatchback.