4th gen ND Mazda MX-5 Miata

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I wouldn't compare dyno vs. dyno results unless testing a '17+ vs. '16-, both totally stock, on the same dyno the same day. And even then it wouldn't be enough to conclusively nail it down.

Fact is, 2017+ cars are testing at the same 1/4-mile trap speeds vs the previous cars, and lo the weight difference between non-PP Limiteds isn't all that much after all, 2764 lb. for 2013 and 2777 lb. for 2017:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ed-test-review
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...al-test-review

1 tenth quicker, 0mph faster in the 1/4 at the same weight.

I don't think the 17+ are making much if any more real-world usable power.

You know that 0-60 , 1/4-mile and the rest of the measurements are not very accurate. Right? They involve a car launch. Especially on a MT car you can have big differences. There is a reason why I made my acceleration measurements with a rolling speed and using 2nd gear.

The result of the dyno cannot be ignored. You can argue all day about the accuracy of a dyno, but you cannot ignore the fact that the '17+ cars have better AFR's, BUT not constantly. After a point they will add fuel and lose power and in this case I agree the difference between an old and a new car is smaller. However, when the AFR is better you have much better engine output. If you don't know it, then ask whatever tuner you like.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by mrg666

I don't believe your engine mods made any significant changes in power. There is no proof. Looking at your build thread they are just expensive nonsense. If you really saved 200 pounds, which I don't believe either, the acceleration difference cannot be better than 7% (200/2800*100) using f=ma equation. Keep posting but I will be ignoring all your posts from now on.

I don't care. Do whatever you want and believe whatever you like. I've been polite to you and you raised twice the bs flag? I have my arguments and my measurements. You don't have anything apart from ignorance and it looks that you have a behavior problem too.

[why?]

Originally Posted by mav1178

Yes, but how many of these are without a catalytic converter?

A catalytic converter is still vital to reduce CO and NOx emissions. There's no other solution out there that is as simple and as cost effective.

you say such things with zero proof. catalytic converters are ancient tech. The only reason they are still there is because by regulation they have to be there. I know we could find something better if we let automakers do their jobs instead of regulating specific antique tech into vehicles.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by why?

catalytic converters are ancient tech.

You don't always have to replace your so-called ancient tech. It can be improved upon.

http://www.mining.com/new-toyota-tec...lladium-price/

Electric cars are "ancient tech" as well since they had them in the 19th century. It's not government regulations that need to be rid of, but fascist corporatism.

[why?]

Originally Posted by krayzie

You don't always have to replace your so-called ancient tech. It can be improved upon.

http://www.mining.com/new-toyota-tec...lladium-price/

Electric cars are "ancient tech" as well since they had them in the 19th century. It's not government regulations that need to be rid of, but fascist corporatism.

The problem is it is still a cat, and while you can kinda sort patch it, you cannot change the basic crappy tech.

There is zero things the same from a modern electric compared to what they were doing in the 1890's. And if Toyota can really get solid state batteries production usable, maybe electric cars might have a chance to become feasible for normal people, and odds are every car would have a battery in it to help with gas mileage in some capacity. Still kind of doubt it, electric cars will most likely go the way of steam powered cars once more.

[krayzie]

Well corporations are not setup to be charitable organizations. I'll just leave it at that.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by why?

you say such things with zero proof. catalytic converters are ancient tech. The only reason they are still there is because by regulation they have to be there. I know we could find something better if we let automakers do their jobs instead of regulating specific antique tech into vehicles.

I don't need to provide proof... you're the one who said the following:

We have modern day gas vehicles that actually put out air cleaner than what they take in. Volvo especially was having fun advertising that fact. If we can do that, why do you think we cannot come up with something better? A carb is tech from the early 80's. Not much else from then is in common use today for a reason.

I asked you, how many of those Volvo cars were running without a cat? That's all I am asking.

As for my comment, it's based in reality and truth. If there was a better/cheaper solution to reduce emissions other than a cat, you'd think automotive corporations would've done it by now... but it's "government regulations" getting in their way.

A truly smart company would come up with something innovative, cheaper, patent it, then lobby the government to bend the rules in their favor so all parties benefit. I have yet to see any new tech that can do what a current generation catalytic converter does.

As for the CO and NOx comment, it's there because it's true, those are two major components of your typical exhaust stream.

[ZDan]

Cats are cheap, they work, and they don't cost much if any horsepower. I had to get them to pass emissions on the V8 FD, they cut my HC, CO, NOx tremendously, like by factors of 4 to 8, car no longer smells, and no detectable loss of power.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by mav1178

As for the CO and NOx comment, it's there because it's true, those are two major components of your typical exhaust stream.

FYI, if CO and NOx are "major components" of your exhaust before it's treated by a cat then you've got a piss poor engine tune. CO is a product of incomplete combustion and NOx are caused mainly by pre-denotation.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Cats are cheap, they work, and they don't cost much if any horsepower. I had to get them to pass emissions on the V8 FD, they cut my HC, CO, NOx tremendously, like by factors of 4 to 8, car no longer smells, and no detectable loss of power.

Actually cats are one of the most expensive single components of a car due to the use of platinum, palladium, and rhodium which is are all noble metals. They however work very well and that makes them cost effective.

[Entroper]

Quick update: https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...werful-engine/

• Lighter engine internals (surprising, as the existing internals are pretty light)
• Bigger intake and exhaust ports (not surprising, the existing head has poor flow)
• Bigger cam
• New throttle body
• Better flowing intake and exhaust

This seems pretty confirmed, and the way they're doing it makes sense. Mazda has previously said that the Skyactiv-X will not go into the ND. And all three past generations of Miatas have received incremental upgrades to the engine. This is nothing new or out of the ordinary, it's to be expected.

I agree with krayzie -- Mazda originally designed this car for the 1.5 L Skyactiv, and they tuned that engine for higher revs than the standard 1.5 Skyactiv that comes in their other cars. They're now doing the same thing for the 2.0 L Skyactiv.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

FYI, if CO and NOx are "major components" of your exhaust before it's treated by a cat then you've got a piss poor engine tune. CO is a product of incomplete combustion and NOx are caused mainly by pre-denotation.

I should've said "major contributors to air pollution out of your tailpipe", not talking in general about what's coming out.

And I'm only referencing stock, unmodified engines. Catalytic converters are old tech, but they are still the most cost-effective way to reduce tailpipe emissions that aren't water and CO2.

[why?]

Originally Posted by mav1178

I don't need to provide proof... you're the one who said the following:
I asked you, how many of those Volvo cars were running without a cat? That's all I am asking.
As for my comment, it's based in reality and truth. If there was a better/cheaper solution to reduce emissions other than a cat, you'd think automotive corporations would've done it by now... but it's "government regulations" getting in their way.
A truly smart company would come up with something innovative, cheaper, patent it, then lobby the government to bend the rules in their favor so all parties benefit. I have yet to see any new tech that can do what a current generation catalytic converter does.
As for the CO and NOx comment, it's there because it's true, those are two major components of your typical exhaust stream.

Sorry that is just not true. Since that cat itself is mandated, not just a specific air quality level, no one is going to try different things. If the only thing that was mandated was air quality levels, it would be a totally different game, and would actually let auto companies do their thing.

Just like air bags are mandated. We know they've murdered people, yet because the specific device is mandated it is in every single vehicle and it is how every auto company starts their safety programs. If they just mandated a specific score on safety tests, maybe someone figures out how to fix the fact that airbags can easily murder people.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by why?

Sorry that is just not true. Since that cat itself is mandated, not just a specific air quality level, no one is going to try different things. If the only thing that was mandated was air quality levels, it would be a totally different game, and would actually let auto companies do their thing.

Just like air bags are mandated. We know they've murdered people, yet because the specific device is mandated it is in every single vehicle and it is how every auto company starts their safety programs. If they just mandated a specific score on safety tests, maybe someone figures out how to fix the fact that airbags can easily murder people.

We have been down the airbag route before. First off murder implies intent and not one airbag ever has had any kind of intent. Next up the recorded cases of properly built airbags causing death are next to zero. The untold millions of lives they have saved more than cancels out even the fatalities caused by the defective ones. This has been proven time and time again. To think anything else is not even reasonable.
As far as cats go they consist of one small sub section of any emissions control requirements and if somebody came up with something that does the job it could be added to the list of accepted devices in a heart beat. Nobody has come up with anything that matches them yet is all.