Mazda E-skyactiv-G 2.0

topher

topher

topher

Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2003
Posts
3,737
Anyone here got a Mazda 3 / cx-30 with the e-skyactiv 2.0 petrol 120bhp engine?

Looking at the above cars but 2l 120bhp without turbo seems a bit odd, considering most cars now have turbo’s as standard.

also real world mpg is around 33mpg, 47mpg according to Mazda! That real world mpg figure was taken from a website that I found.. so could be wrong!
 
Yes I have one getting around 44mpg average, 70% motorway id say. I purposely didn't want a small turbo engine like the simplicity of a simple petrol engine.

Edit: sorry just seen the e- bit, I've got the standard skyactive X.
 
I know the last generation of the car was software limited to 120bhp for the UK/European market and it should be 165bhp. This can obviously be changed but obviously is no different to remapping and something you're supposed to declare. Nearly every review tends to criticise the car for being slightly underpowered, dunno why Mazda thought it was a good idea. Not sure if it's the same with the newest model.
 
Last edited:
whilst every one went small engine + turbo, mazda decided to do a 2L version without turbo, they are supposed to be pretty good !
 
More like Ford dumped them and stopped sharing development information with them, and they used what they had lying around. Won't be long before they end up like Rover.
 
Somnambulist said:
I know the last generation of the car was software limited to 120bhp for the UK/European market and it should be 165bhp. This can obviously be changed but obviously is no different to remapping and something you're supposed to declare. Nearly every review tends to criticise the car for being slightly underpowered, dunno why Mazda thought it was a good idea. Not sure if it's the same with the newest model.
Click to expand...

Probably some emissions crap
 
It's still got the torque of a 2.0 litre though, hadn't realised they didn't put the '6''s >=165bhp engine in the 3 though

.. but, yes, it is a pity europe doesn't get the usa turbo options, or, the range extender on electric versions.
I don't know if I would be afraid of servicing costs on older versions, as they (moreover 6 tourer, I follow ) takes a big depreciation hit.
 
We’ve got the 165bhp version in our 2017 Mazda3. Nice performance for a daily driver, smooth power delivery and economical for a 2.0 petrol :)
 
I have a 2015 Mazda 3 with the 2.0 Skyactiv engine. Specs look pretty much the same as the current model. Although bizarrely the current model is supposedly 2 seconds slower 0-60. As said above it's software limited to 120hp. The throttle input gets cut back at above ~4500rpm compared with the unrestricted 165hp version. I did think about getting it remapped but driving day to day I very rarely go over 4500rpm so it wouldn't have made a massive difference. For a NA 2.0 it does produce a decent amount of torque, noticeably more than the 2008 Mazda 6 2.0 petrol I had previously. As for MPG I'm averaging 44 with a mixture of motorway and urban driving. I'd hope the current version would do more than 33mpg!
 
Not to forget Mazda's start/stop is the best there is, actually fit for purpose.

They're very high compression for a petrol which is why they're nice and punchy makes daily driving much nicer where you don't use high revs.
 
topher said:
also real world mpg is around 33mpg, 47mpg according to Mazda! That real world mpg figure was taken from a website that I found.. so could be wrong!
Click to expand...

As others are saying I'd be surprised if this is the case. I bought the other half a 2015 CX-5 with the 2.0 165 version of this engine and even on her 95% short trips around town it's managing 32MPG across a tank.
 
topher said:
I got the figures from this site

MAZDA CX-30 2.0 SE-L 122PS e-Skyactiv-G MHEV 2WD - NewPetrol - CO2 134 g/km (nextgreencar.com)
Click to expand...

It could be true I guess, but as mentioned I actually own and drive one of these with a very similiar, engine in the higher power output and without any of the mild hybrid stuff. Even on short trips (taking the kids to nursey, popping to the shops etc, all less than 5 miles at a time. I've just turned in 32 MPG across a tank. Given the engine and weight of the CX-30 is very similiar I imagine getting as low as 33 is a possibility, but only if your driving pattern is as bad as mine. If you do anything more average its going to be in the high 30's and long trips should be pushing 40+.
 
I had a 2014 mazda 3 165hp. I wouldn't worry about getting a 120hp version as the only difference is at the top end when you are above 4000rpm.

Lower down the torque and hp are identical. Peak torque is identical for both. Basically short shift.

Without turbos the fuel economy was also very reliably constant.

yxDL08z.jpg


XU92shW.jpg
 
Last edited:
Got round to taking a Mazda 3 for a test drive, lovely car inside, gearbox was also really good,
Heads up display is a nice touch. only concern is the possible lack of acceleration when on a motorway.

I’ll be testing a Leon fr 1.5 130 bhp at the weekend.

should be interesting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom