2021 Mazda Cx-5 Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why we can't have better headlights here in the U.S.

It wouldn't be a European auto show if we weren't teased with at least one mainstream vehicle we can't have here. At the Geneva Motor Show last week, the small but vocal contingent of shooting-brake buffs lamented that the Mazda6 wagon won't be coming to our shores, although they can take comfort in the fact that the vehicle won't get the torquey 250-horsepower 2.5-liter turbocharged gasoline engine we'll get here. Mercedes-Benz also announced a new headlight technology in Geneva that likely won't be available here anytime soon. It's just the latest in a long line of innovative and potentially lifesaving front-lighting solutions that the federal government doesn't allow in this country due to outdated standards — and a current lack of leadership at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mercedes-Benz's new Digital Light system that debuted in Geneva uses a computer chip to activate more than a million micro-reflectors to better illuminate the road ahead. The Digital Light headlamps works with the vehicle's cameras, sensors and navigation mapping to adjust lighting for the given location and situation and to detect other road users. The Digital Light technology also serves as an extended head-up display of sorts by projecting symbols on the pavement ahead to alert drivers to, say, slippery conditions or pedestrians in the road. And it can even project lines on the road in a construction zone or through tight curves to show the driver the correct path. Digital Light will be available on Mercedes-Maybach vehicles later this year, although like any technology it's bound to trickle down to less expensive vehicles. That is, if we ever get it here in the U.S. Audi, a leader in automotive lighting, has repeatedly run into snags trying to bring state-of-the-art car headlights to the U.S. The German luxury automaker's recently introduced matrix laser headlight system, which performs many of the same trick as Mercedes-Benz's Digital Light, also isn't legal on U.S. roads. And five years after the introduction of its matrix-beam LED lighting, which illuminates more of the road without blinding oncoming motorists with brights by simultaneously operating high and low beams, Audi still can't bring that technology to the U.S. either.

How Mazda got Skyactiv-X to work is incredible

"Take everything you know about engines and turn it around," Mazda North America Vehicle Development Engineer Dave Coleman says, patiently and with a look of benevolent pity, as he's quizzed about the particulars of the company's new engine. The Skyactiv-X engine is enigmatic — and deceptively simple in operation. And the bottom line for American consumers is that they'll be able to buy a car (or crossover; we don't know yet what vehicle will first get it) by late 2019 that provides diesel-like fuel economy but runs on regular old gasoline. In between diesel and spark ignition, but it's neither To truly understand it, you have to dive into the contradictions. Take that regular old gasoline: Contrary to common sense, the lower the octane, the better it works. In the lab, the Skyactiv-X engine loves 80 octane. The lowest Americans get is 87, so the engine is tuned for that octane. Go higher and you lose some low-end torque. Coleman was right. It's hard to wrap your head around an engine that thrives just at the point when most gas engines would aggressively self-destruct. It uses a supercharger to pump additional air — but not additional fuel. It uses spark plugs to start a combustion cycle that normally doesn't need a spark. And, quixotically, it's not displacing Mazda's own American-market diesel engine, currently languishing in a seemingly endless hell of regulatory approval. More bizarre: Mazda is a tiny automaker facing real existential headwinds, and gasoline compression ignition is a massive challenge. GM and Hyundai announced compression ignition, or HCCI, projects (full name, homogeneous charge compression ignition) to great fanfare, but they never amounted to a production hill of beans, crippled by reliability issues or horrible vibrations. Worse, they only worked at an unusably narrow range — low RPMs and low loads. HCCI research improved direct-injection gas and diesel engine technologies for these companies, but HCCI itself remains untamed. The benefits of lean combustion Why even try to tame HCCI? The answer is much better fuel economy and lower emissions. Less burned carbon-based fuel, less carbon dioxide released. That's simple. But there are some thermodynamic reasons for the lean combustion you can achieve with compression ignition that are worth explaining. The ideal amount of fuel for a conventional engine to burn is about a 14:1 air-to-fuel ratio. That lets every molecule burn nicely, in theory.

J.D. Power dependability survey is out, but you shouldn't depend on it

J.D. Power has just released its latest automotive dependability survey, which of course has usual suspects Buick and Lexus ranking high. Those are safe and solid findings, surely. But when you look a little closer, there are curiosities. Our Consumer Editor, Jeremy Korzeniewski, offered an explanation a couple of years back for why this survey should be viewed with a degree of skepticism, and his take is worth a re-read. What jumped out at Jeremy were the relatively low spots assigned to Mazda, Subaru and Scion among the ranking of makes. Back in 2016 when he wrote his piece, they were ranked 21st, 23rd and 24th respectively. In this year's survey, Mazda ranks 15th and Subaru 26th, both below the industry average of 142 reported problems per 100 vehicles. (And Scion, of course, is in car-brand heaven.) Now, part of what is going on here is surely the fact that all automotive brands are producing dependable vehicles compared with years gone by, so the degree of variance between the best and worst on the list is not as great as it once was. "For the most part, automotive manufacturers continue to meet consumers' vehicle dependability expectations," Dave Sargent, a J.D. Power vice president, said in a statement. "A 9 percent improvement is extremely impressive, and vehicle dependability is, without question, at its best level ever." That said, when a brand like Subaru, regarded by many as mechanically bulletproof, ranks 26th, it leaves people who know cars scratching their heads. Something there does not compute. The problem, as Jeremy pointed out, is one of methodology: When he wrote his piece, there was no weighting assigned to the problems reported in the survey. And that still appears to be the case. Therefore, a problem with an infotainment system or a loose piece of trim is deemed as serious as a blown engine or leaky transmission. (And yes, infotainment is still the biggest problem across the board.) Jeremy's point: If the categories of problems were weighted, you'd see a different picture. When you look at the Consumer Reports brand rankings (subscription required), you get a very different picture. in CR's rankings, Subaru is No. 6 among brands, which, well, sounds a lot more like it. CR singles out the redesigned 2017 Impreza as a car with some new-model problems. (The BRZ had the fewest.) The two surveys jibe a little more closely when it comes to Mazda, which CR ranks 12th, a drop of six places from previous-year rankings.