Discuss the Mazda 6s Ford Duratec 3.0L engine

[Blue Mazda]

moderator edit, context from another thread (split)

Originally Posted by Plumaccordcoupe

Yeah but it was a V6 S/C Mazda6 with more HP and TQ than this one. I would rather have that engine . I forgot if it had AWD.

Oh boy, here come the honda boys beating on the "Ford Duratec Engine" in my Mazda 6...... There are absolutly NO issues with the Duratec BLOCK that is in a Mazda 6. Do you realize that Porsche designed it? Are you aware that there are people out there pushing 350+ HP out of them and having no issues at all with them? Are you aware that the reliability of the Ford cars with them nowadays is on par with your Hondas and Nissans? The problems with those engines was what Ford was putting around them, not the engines themselvles and those issues are circa 1990. Do a little research before you go bashing something you don't know a thing about........

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Oh boy, here come the honda boys beating on the "Ford Duratec Engine" in my Mazda 6......

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

There are absolutly NO issues with the Duratec BLOCK that is in a Mazda 6.

"Anymore" and "you hope". The early Duratec engines suffered from crank bearing issues IIRC which required rebuilding but they've been reliable "since 1999".

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Do you realize that Porsche designed it?

Really? How bout some proof. Got any? Talk is real cheap. SAE white paper perhaps? Some official documentation from Ford or reputable automotive media source?

Here's all I found on that.

http://www.internetautoguide.com/rev...d_Contour.html

Employing four valves per cylinder and double overhead cams, the Duratec V6 was engineered with the help of Porsche Engineering and Cosworth, which specializes in Ford racing engines.

"with the help of" Good for Ford. That doesn't mean that Porsche designed the whole thing, and there's a ton more to engines than just the block.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Are you aware that there are people out there pushing 350+ HP out of them and having no issues at all with them?

So what? There are guys here pushing in excess of 400HP at the crank out of J30A1's, and I know of some Maxima and Camry guys that have well over 400 chp and probably closer to 500 chp with "no issues" on the engines either. Nice work on their part, but not ground breaking or "new". Lets see them clear 500 wtq on all stock internals (Nissan VQ head gaskets blow just north of there) and then you'll really impress me.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Are you aware that the reliability of the Ford cars with them nowadays is on par with your Hondas and Nissans?

Not according to Consumer Reports and JD Power, the two most well known and respected names in automotive data mining in the US. Lets see you back this up with some proof. Yeah the Mazda6 is "on par with" but you generalized and said "Ford cars" and that just isn't true. The Ford Taurus and Ford Escape haven't been winning any quality and reliability awards, have they?

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

The problems with those engines was what Ford was putting around them, not the engines themselvles and those issues are circa 1990.

Well you can't just drive an engine.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Do a little research before you go bashing something you don't know a thing about........

oh really

I have my reasons for not being all that enthusiastic about the Duratec as installed in the 6s and they're perfectly legit reasons. And it has nothing to do with reliability or modding potential or how much HP it can old stock or any of that.

[Blue Mazda]

Hmm.....curious, you do realize that the upper end of the engine is all Mazda, not Ford, don't you Steve? Duratec "installed" in my 6? Duratec family, but they didn't just rip it out of a Taurus and plop it in. And all the proof I need is the fact that so far the 6 has been as reliable or better than the Accord has been per consumer reports. How is that a "you hope". The "Proof" you provide is for the Duratec 25, not the Duratec 30. Last time I checked my car was a 3.0ltr, which isn't the same engine as I have in my 6 now is it. If you check out consumer reports, the Taurus and Sable finished as about average for reliability, the Mazda 6 finished fourth.....ahead of Altima and Accord. Matter of fact, per Consumer Reports, the Mazda MPV, which also has a Duratec 30 engine in it as a direct drop in from Ford finished 2nd, just below Toyota and ahead of Honda and Nissan for reliability. If 6 club was up I could get you the link to the Duratec 3.0 pushing more like 400 hp with stock internals, but it has been down for a while. And, I know you can't just drive an engine, but we were TALKING about an engine......did you forget? Would seem like the Duratec, which has been fine in terms of mechanical strenght since the 90's isn't the reason why Ford's cars are only average in reliability. I ment to say that the mechanical quailty or engine quality of Ford is not below par compared to Honda and Nissan. I don't think I see many Honda's and Nissans winning any quality awards these days either Steve. The 6 has been BETTER THAN many of them in quality AND it has a Duratec family engine. And I would immangine that the prototype of the 6 which was supercharged had, oh I don't know, a Mazda 6 V6 engine with a supercharger on it? I wouldn't think they would have taken one from a Taurus just for the hell of it. Really wouldn't think it would matter though. I know the drill, someone disagreed with you, now you can take your pot shot back, not back anything up and close up this thread....... Bottom line is it was a stupid comment and if you want to "stand behind it", hey, that is your perogative

[Blue Mazda]

And also Steve, if you specifically go onto Consumer Reports.org and look up the Taurus, Escape, Tribute, MPV, 6, Sable or whatever, they have all been given ratings of Very Good or Excellent for engine and transmission for the last 3-4 years (not the 6 of course, it didn't exist). Matter of fact, all of these vehicles were given the "reccomended" mark by Consumer Reports. For current models of these vehicles, JD Power only has intitial quality ratings, and does not specifically break out the engine as a rated component. So flaws in mechanical quality could be anything. I wouldn't think that would be admissable to a discussion about the dependability and durability of an engine since it is not specifically identified like on Consumer Reports. Just admit it was a stupid statement or stand by it, what ever.........I think it was a stupid statement......

[SteVTEC]

Yeah I knew it had Mazda DOHC heads and Mazda VVT, that's really old news.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

As far as reliability, 2000-2001 Accord transmissions are still rated "better than average" in Consumer Reports, yet Honda is already on to warranty extensions. The fact is, issues do exist the trannys are FAR from bulletproof. Otherwise the failure rate would not be much if anything above zero percent. So if you say that Duratec engines are getting "very good or excellent", the "very good" part doesn't exactly inspire confidence. A major drivetrain component ought to be getting straight excellents on high quality import cars known for reliability, and if it isn't it's definitely worth looking into before considering one. What are the issues with the Duratec then? Do you even know?

Here's why I don't like the FORD Duratec 3.0 as installed in the Mazda 6s.

Toyota 1MZ-FE 3.0L V6 w/VVT-i: 222 lb-ft
Honda J30A4 3.0L V6 w/VTEC: 212-222 lb-ft
Nissan VQ30DE-K no VVT 3.0L V6: 217 lb-ft
BMW 3.0L Inline-6 w/Double VANOS: 214 lb-ft (under-rated, more like 224 probably)
Toyota 1MZ-FE 3.0L V6, no VVT: 209-214 lb-ft
Nissan VQ30DE 3.0L V6, no VVT: 205 lb-ft
Honda J30A1 3.0L V6 w/VTEC-E: 195 lb-ft
Ford Duratec 3.0L V6 w/Mazda S-VT: 192 lb-ft

The Duratec 3.0 with higher compression, and torque optimizing S-VT has less peak torque than a Honda J30A1 with VTEC-E (for economy) and a lower 9.4:1 CR.



Why is the Duratec with its DOHC head, S-VT variable valve timing, and 10.0:1 compression down by 20 or even 30 lb-ft of torque vs the competition at the same displacement? Is that not a bit sub-par? Did Ford not concentrate enough on internal friction reduction? Perhaps. Did they not pay enough attention to internal weight reduction and lowering reciprocating mass? Perhaps. Is their engine design not as volumetrically efficient as the competition? Perhaps. Are the cams real dinky? Perhaps. Are the ports and other induction/exhaust items not optimized well? Perhaps. Is the engine management and factory tuning non-optimal? Perhaps. Could it be a combination of many of the above? Quite likely. I also don't like that it has less low-end torque than my 10 year old Nissan 3.0L (dyno links below) with variable nothing. Ford is using tumbler valves in the intake manifold to meet emissions it looks like, which is a quick and dirty way to accomplish that but at the expense of torque apparently. Why not a true variable runner length or volume setup? I also don't like that it's not significantly quicker than the TSX despite having a 3.0L V6 vs a 2.4L I-4, and that the gearing in the TSX is such that it could actually pull on a 6s from a roll in various situations. Shall I post up a dyno and gearing analysis (which I have done) for you? I just need to make the screen captures and upload if so. Let me know.

Oh yeah, here's those dyno links:
Stock VQ30DE dyno: 170 wtq @ 2500 rpm
Stock Duratec 3.0 S-VT dyno: 155 wtq @ 2500 rpm

I *LOVE* the 6. Looks awesome, great handling, roomy and styling inside, but I just feel that the FORD V6 is sub-par and has a lot of wasted potential. In many ways it's similar to the old J30A1 engine in my Accord, and I didn't care for that engine at all with its lack of torque and crummy low-end. Wards called the J30A1 engine "sleepy". But the new J30A4 is now a Ward's 10 Best engine. And it's still a 3.0L engine just like the Ford. And it still has a 10.0:1 CR like the Ford. Why is the Ford so down on both torque and power? (note: cuz the Honda has VTEC is not the correct answer)

BTW, did DuratecPerformance from 6club or anybody come out with an aftermarket ECU solution for the 6 yet? You know the factory timing is set for 87 only and apparently won't advance further on premium fuel like Honda, Nissan, and Toyota engines all will. Hence, the need for an aftermarket ECU solution to tap into hidden potential which will cost you money that competing engines already tap into with the stock ECU. When they're done with the Duratec 3.0, have them stop over here about cracking the ECU for the J30A1 guys. Same issue, and tons of people with money that they're willing to spend.

Nissan, Honda, and Toyota's 3.0L's are all arguably better and more powerful, and all of them have made Ward's 10 Best engines list at one point or another. Where is the Ford? Ford could have done a much better job. It's the domestic philosophy. Get it to where it's "good enough" and then ship it. They generally don't go the extra mile like the Japanese and Germans do to get as much out of the engine as possible straight from the factory. That very philosophy is probably where a good chunk of that missing 20-30 lb-ft of torque is. It has all the high-tech goodies, so where's the torque? In terms of power output, it's about 5 years behind the rest of the market.

bleh...well so much for "Porsche engineering" which you have yet to provide proof of by the way. Yeah, I guess I don't know anything about Duratec engines either.

So I stand by my "stupid" comment, thank you very much.

[CaliAtenza]

How do u think the V6 engine can be improved?...i have the Injen intake, and while it provides plenty of zoom!, the lack of low end torque is still noticible...

[Plumaccordcoupe]

Originally Posted by SteVTEC

So I stand by my "stupid" comment, thank you very much.

So will I .

I know the Duratec in the Mazda 6s is about as good as the engine in my car (J30A1). But that isn't saying much since the J30A1 was lacking low end torque (compared to other 3.0L V6's) even back when it first came out in 1996 (used in the 1997 model year Acura 3.0 CL). How do I know the Duratec V6 in the Mazda 6s is that bad? Simple, I read the 1/4 times posted up for the auto 6s and saw that they were about the same as the 6th gen AV6. Why don't I like the Duratec V6 in the 6s? Because it has the almost the same performance (auto vs. auto) as an engine of the same liter size that was made over 5 years before the 6s was ever released.

It is not “bashing”, it is fact (most of which can be found in Stevtec’s posts) .

[brex]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

moderator edit, context from another thread (split)

Oh boy, here come the honda boys beating on the "Ford Duratec Engine" in my Mazda 6......

Lol.. at Mazda section, Steve is being called a honda boy... how many names u got now steve? we should get Guinness world record to pay steve and v6p a visit..

[Blue Mazda]

Er......brex, if you read the thread, a guy named Plumaccord also made the same comment, and I am not sure, but based on the name.......I think he MIGHT......correct me if I am wrong........own........well........a Honda...........and be........correct me again if I am wrong........a boy............therefore being.........a HONDA-BOY.........

[Teirs]

^^ stick to the main arguement boys

haha that new "WTF gun" smiley is funny.

[Blue Mazda]

That is a great analyzis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Duratec 30 SteVTEC, and I concur 1000% with your points, which I will get to in a second....... However, your initial stupid comment was inslulting the strength and warewithall of the Duratec 30 to handle a supercharger, not, why it only makes 192 lb/ft peak torque, not why it is a little light in the loafers at low RPM. In terms of the reliability ratings, for the last 3 years EVERY car that has the Duratec 30 in it has gotten a rating of Excellent for reliaiblity no matter what the name plate on the front of the car has said. MOST of them have gotten an exellent rating by consumer reports for at least the last 5 years. Go take a look at consumerreports.org for yourself. THAT my friend, is all the support I need for my claims that your FIRST opinion was an un-educated one. If you want to stand by THAT opinion, despite the facts, than that is your perogative.......

[brex]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Er......brex, if you read the thread, a guy named Plumaccord also made the same comment, and I am not sure, but based on the name.......I think he MIGHT......correct me if I am wrong........own........well........a Honda...........and be........correct me again if I am wrong........a boy............therefore being.........a HONDA-BOY.........

hmm.. i did.. and i didn't see anyone calling him honda-boy except you..

mind you, i didn't meant any disrepect when saying that... it was just generally steve isn't being call a "honda-boy" anywhere else on the site.. especially on the honda section.. lol.. hence..

i think its so tough being in steve's position, especially when he points out some flaw and problems with legit information backing it up.. he is still being bash every possible way.. name calling? that's nothing new..

[brex]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

That is a great analyzis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Duratec 30 SteVTEC, and I concur 1000% with your points, which I will get to in a second....... However, your initial stupid comment was inslulting the strength and warewithall of the Duratec 30 to handle a supercharger, not, why it only makes 192 lb/ft peak torque, not why it is a little light in the loafers at low RPM.

hmm.. let's be fair here.. i don't think steve's original comment has anything about it handling a supercharger or reliability.. let's not change this fact so late in the game..

Originally Posted by SteVTEC

I have my reasons for not being all that enthusiastic about the Duratec as installed in the 6s and they're perfectly legit reasons. And it has nothing to do with reliability or modding potential or how much HP it can old stock or any of that.

you specifically didn't like him stating publically on his dislikes of duratec engin, steve later backs up with solid info... for the spirit of debate, can you tell me now that his reasons and information is not legit? full of BS or whatnot?

like you said.. you agree 1000% with what steve had said.. so why are you still saying his first comment was "un-educated" one? when he had already shown you so much analysis and fact.. and you agree to them all!?!? :boink:

not all things are created perfect.. there are bounds to be flaw here and there.. heck.. i love my honda but i also know what's wrong with it.. i will gladly accept the fact when someone like steve had take the time to present them to me..

[Blue Mazda]

Now, on the arguments about the weakness of the Duratec 30 vs other engines on the market today. I don't get where this arguement came from based on my original arguement, becasue no where in there did I say it was the best or the most techically advanced engine out there, weather it be in the 6s or another vehicle. The reason why this engine was used in the 6 as opposed to a new Mazda engine is a matter of money. Mazda does not have the R&D dollars that Honda does, and is a part of the Ford Motor Company umbrella. Mazda was given the Duratec 30 workings from Ford, and in a limited budget was asked to get what it needed out of that. Yes auto to auto, the 6s Auto performs only slightly better (about 1/4 to 1/2 second better) than the old Honda V6. But it was better than anything else that Mazda had on its drawing board to enable it to compete with the likes of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota. The reasons for the low torque number of the Duratec 30? Comes down to Bore and Stroke I believe. The Duratec 30 has a longer bore than stroke (89mm x 79.5mm) vs the Honda 3.0L which has an equal Bore and stroke (86mm x 86mm). If you know something about engines, this set up does not lend itself to being a torque monger. The Ford version of the Duratec 30 makes 200 HP and 200 lb/fto of torque, vs the Mazda tuned version which makes 220HP and 192 lb/ft of torque. Sure, Mazda lost a little torque, but gained 20peak HP with its set up. Why is this important? Let's face it guys, HP sells cars. Mazda knows this. Mazda needed this car to do well. Is there room for improvement? Well based on what we have seen over in Mazda land, Mazda "could" spend R&D dollars and make the same enhancements that Honda made for the 2003 version of its V6 engine if they wanted to boost performance. If I understand correctly, the new Accord V6 makes more power than the old one due to a new intake manifold, air intake and exhaust set up as well as enhancements to the VTEC system. Well, us 6 folks have already pulled 20 extra hp and torque out of the Duratec in the 6 just by adding an Injen intake and a device made by an outfit called CP-E that changes the fuel trims to make the car not run so rich at WOT. The 6 also makes use of the very same intake manifold as is found on a Taurus or any other Duratec 30. Mazda could re-design or enhance this piece to make better use of its variabile valve timing set up. And the exhaust, well that could always use some work. Look, let's face it. I HAVE a 6s and can tell you that the Mazda version of the V6 is not a bad engine at ALL. However, I have a manual tranny. I have said this before on other boards, if I was an auto person, I am not sure I would have bought this car in an automatic. This engine needs to be at a boil to get the performance that is there out of it. Overall, the 6 is a very balanced performer which is what I like about it. Is it the macho **** man brag to your buddies HP monger of the world? No. But overall, it drives circles around the cars that are as far as I am concerned. I am not real concerned with my 1/4 mile times, or impressing my buddies by how much HP my car is rated for. As someone who owns this car it is easy to go on the defensive about this stuff. Don't you think it might be a little tiring to have un-educated teenie bopers on this board say that the 6 is a Ford, its a bad car becasue it has a Ford engine, the 6 is a rebagged Taurus and on down the line........haters haters haters haters....... That's all it is.

[Blue Mazda]

Since you didn't go back and read it Brex, here is the post by SteVTEC about the 6 V6 being supercharged over in the post about the MPS 6. It is conveniently not included in THIS thread, which was created off of that one. THIS is the original arguement point.....so I am not changing the game one bit...... You however might want to get INTO the game if you wish to argue this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumaccordcoupe
Yeah but it was a V6 S/C Mazda6 with more HP and TQ than this one. I would rather have that engine . I forgot if it had AWD.

Reply by SteVTEC:
All that weight on the front end will just make it very nose heavy. Plus you don't need displacement when you have boost. Just take the lighter 4-cyl and run a little more boost, all while keeping front end weight in check. Plus the 4-cyl is a Mazda engine and not a Ford Duratec.

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Go take a look at consumerreports.org for yourself. THAT my friend, is all the support I need for my claims that your FIRST opinion was an un-educated one. If you want to stand by THAT opinion, despite the facts, than that is your perogative.......

Wrong YET AGAIN.

I NEVER said I based my "STUPID" opinion on the reliability issue.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

I have my reasons for not being all that enthusiastic about the Duratec as installed in the 6s and they're perfectly legit reasons. And it has nothing to do with reliability or modding potential or how much HP it can old stock or any of that.

Wow...all excellents in engine reliability for the first 3 years. That matches a Chevy Impala. If you have different standards then that's fine, but I expect import engines to go their entire life without any major issues, not just 3 years. Especially considering that out of warranty engine work could cost an arm and a leg no matter how small the problem.

I really don't think most people buying a 6 (or an Accord, or a Camry, or any other car in this segment) are really gonna care if the engine is strong enough to hold a supercharger. And BTW, the Accord can hold a supercharger, as can the Camry, as can the Maxima, so I really don't know what that proves anyways.

An Acura TSX can out accelerate a Mazda 6s in the low-end, despite only being a 4-banger vs a V6. That reminds me of my '01 Accord V6 and I find that "stupid" on Ford's part. Forgive me.

And you still have yet to provide proof that the Duratec was designed by Porsche. I'm just going to keep sticking that point to you until you either back it up or withdrawl it.

[brex]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Now, on the arguments about the weakness of the Duratec 30 vs other engines on the market today. I don't get where this arguement came from based on my original arguement, becasue no where in there did I say it was the best or the most techically advanced engine out there, weather it be in the 6s or another vehicle.

lol.. that IS the whole argument on this thread.. you basically didn't like Steve's "stupid" comment about Duratec engine.. so you bring up this X arguement, then another Y argument, then basically call out Steve on him knowing nothing but ****... you're the one bring up the whole argument in the first place!

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

As someone who owns this car it is easy to go on the defensive about this stuff. Don't you think it might be a little tiring to have un-educated teenie bopers on this board say that the 6 is a Ford, its a bad car becasue it has a Ford engine, the 6 is a rebagged Taurus and on down the line........haters haters haters haters....... That's all it is.

Yes, you will get on defensive about this stuff just like how i will get on defensive when someone saying **** about Honda.. being defensive is one thing (which everyone does from time to time).. being not open minded and calling names is a different issue..

steve had said in his post that he actually likes 6 a lot.. his comment from the begining had always being just the Duratec engine that Ford/Mazda for some reason decided to put in.. no one had ever said 6 is a bad car here...

with all the argument he had put in already.. how can u even call him un-educated teenie bopers? if u wanna call me on that.. no problem.. frankly.. i don't know this much **** about cars anywayz (but i am far from being a teenie anymore).. but neither did i bash 6 and say it is a bad car.. so where did you get your idea that we're all bashing 6 as a bad car? :boink:

[Blue Mazda]

Than what would you base it on? Your post said you favor a Turbo 4 becasue it is a Mazda engine instead of the Duratec. I don't know, that implies to me you don't think the Duratec can handle a supercharger? I know you have other reasons in terms of weight, but that is what you said, stop changing it around, your EXACT words are above....... If that isn't what you mean.......what did you mean. I interpret it is you don't think it can handle it. Also, MOST of the cars with the Duratec 30 have Excellents for AT LEAST the last 5 years. I encourage you to take a look for yourself. You are Mr Fact man, go get'em dog? You are being Mr. Biased bull**** opinion man right now and you are so caught up in it you can't even see it. I am basing my arguent on what YOU said. What YOU said has nothing to do with who desiged the engine. If you weren't taking a shot at reliability, than what did YOU mean. You keep attacking reliability despite the Proof, so it's a little hard for me to believe that your point was that a Duratec can't handle a supercharger. You point that the Duratec was designed WITH Porsche by Cogsworth/Ford was correct.......yay SteVTEC, you got one right........ You are clinging to the MOST obscure point and ignoring the main point despite the proof. And on your shot at the 6 V6 vs the TSX.....read my other post. Cu mon Steve, your better than to cling to a Bull**** arguement like this.

[Blue Mazda]

Steve, can you plese tell Brex that he is totally off in left field and that this arguement was moved here from the MPS thread, as I posted above, but he still doesn't seem to get what we are discussing....... He isn't going to listen to me. And Brex, I am not calling Steve an uneducated tennie boper, just the people that post this kind of stuff. I am ignoring anything else you post to this and would suggest you stop posting unless you get on point........you are off in left field becasue you are trying to join an arguement that you aren't a party to.

[brex]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Since you didn't go back and read it Brex, here is the post by SteVTEC about the 6 V6 being supercharged over in the post about the MPS 6. It is conveniently not included in THIS thread, which was created off of that one. THIS is the original arguement point.....so I am not changing the game one bit...... You however might want to get INTO the game if you wish to argue this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plumaccordcoupe
Yeah but it was a V6 S/C Mazda6 with more HP and TQ than this one. I would rather have that engine . I forgot if it had AWD.

Reply by SteVTEC:
All that weight on the front end will just make it very nose heavy. Plus you don't need displacement when you have boost. Just take the lighter 4-cyl and run a little more boost, all while keeping front end weight in check. Plus the 4-cyl is a Mazda engine and not a Ford Duratec.

if you didn't notice.. it is on the first post of this thread.. and I had read the other thread as well... i based on my opinion about you changing the argument based on the information i got from the first post..

[Blue Mazda]

Well than I don't have any idea where you are comming from other than WAY in left field. You might understand that if you read my response to Steve's post about the performance of the Duratec.

[brex]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Than what would you base it on? Your post said you favor a Turbo 4 becasue it is a Mazda engine instead of the Duratec. I don't know, that implies to me you don't think the Duratec can handle a supercharger? I know you have other reasons in terms of weight, but that is what you said, stop changing it around, your EXACT words are above....... If that isn't what you mean.......what did you mean. I interpret it is you don't think it can handle it. Also, MOST of the cars with the Duratec 30 have Excellents for AT LEAST the last 5 years. I encourage you to take a look for yourself. You are Mr Fact man, go get'em dog? You are being Mr. Biased bull**** opinion man right now and you are so caught up in it you can't even see it. I am basing my arguent on what YOU said. What YOU said has nothing to do with who desiged the engine. If you weren't taking a shot at reliability, than what did YOU mean. You keep attacking reliability despite the Proof, so it's a little hard for me to believe that your point was that a Duratec can't handle a supercharger. You point that the Duratec was designed WITH Porsche by Cogsworth/Ford was correct.......yay SteVTEC, you got one right........ You are clinging to the MOST obscure point and ignoring the main point despite the proof. And on your shot at the 6 V6 vs the TSX.....read my other post. Cu mon Steve, your better than to cling to a Bull**** arguement like this.

All Steve said was he likes Mazda 4banger engine more than the Ford Duratec engine.. it is YOU that brings up all these arguments about reliability, designed by Porsche, people pushing 350+ hp.. Steve then counter each and every one of of your points..

It is again YOU now that says Steve's original comment was about it not able to handle SuperCharger.. which simply wasn't the case until you force it down on everyone's throat.. and trying to make that into the original argument...

heck.. i am guy looking in from outside and i can see it more clearly than you do..

[Blue Mazda]

Right, this is how I read this when someone says "its a Mazda engine and not a Duratec (UGH) and argues the point of reliability for 10 posts with me...... He thinks the Mazda engine can handle being turbocharged and the Duratec can't handle being supercharged......

[VTEC-v6!]

grow up kiddies

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Now, on the arguments about the weakness of the Duratec 30 vs other engines on the market today. I don't get where this arguement came from based on my original arguement, becasue no where in there did I say it was the best or the most techically advanced engine out there, weather it be in the 6s or another vehicle. The reason why this engine was used in the 6 as opposed to a new Mazda engine is a matter of money. Mazda does not have the R&D dollars that Honda does, and is a part of the Ford Motor Company umbrella. Mazda was given the Duratec 30 workings from Ford, and in a limited budget was asked to get what it needed out of that. Yes auto to auto, the 6s Auto performs only slightly better (about 1/4 to 1/2 second better) than the old Honda V6. But it was better than anything else that Mazda had on its drawing board to enable it to compete with the likes of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota.

Yes, this is called economies of scale and it's also what allows Mazda to sell the 6s very cheaply compared to its other V6 competitors. The car is an excellent value for what you get.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

The reasons for the low torque number of the Duratec 30? Comes down to Bore and Stroke I believe. The Duratec 30 has a longer bore than stroke (89mm x 79.5mm) vs the Honda 3.0L which has an equal Bore and stroke (86mm x 86mm). If you know something about engines, this set up does not lend itself to being a torque monger.

This is a nice guess, but unfortunately just not correct. The Nissan VQ30DE engine in the Maxima has a 2.89in stroke (73.4 mm) which is even shorter than the Duratec 3.0, yet it makes 205 lb-ft in the original version with variable nothing, and 217 lb-ft in the 00-01 "DE-K" version with just a variable intake manifold and still no variable valve timing.

The bore vs stroke says a few things. An oversquare engine (big bore, shorter stroke) will favor high revs and top-end torque. With the short stroke the piston speeds are lower which allows it to rev higher, and the larger valve area thanks to the big bore helps it breathe better at high-RPM's. Narrow bore, long stroke engines are the opposite. The narrow bore means a smaller valve area which helps to improve intake charge velocity at low revs. But the lack of valve area (due to narrow bore) at high revs restricts flow, and the long stroke means higher piston speeds and a lower rev limit.

But that said, there's still WAY more to be done. Despite the extremely oversqure setup on the Nissan VQ30's, the engines have been praised for their low-end torque. With appropriate camming and induction setup and good port design, anything is possible.

Here's a good SAE technical white paper for you to read.

SAE 940991: Development of a New-Generation Lightweight 3-Liter V6 Nissan Engine

This is the white paper that Nissan engineers published at the SAE on the original VQ30 engine. They discuss many of the issues faced during the design, including what they did to get decent low-end torque out of an engine that really wants to make top-end power more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

The Ford version of the Duratec 30 makes 200 HP and 200 lb/fto of torque, vs the Mazda tuned version which makes 220HP and 192 lb/ft of torque. Sure, Mazda lost a little torque, but gained 20peak HP with its set up. Why is this important? Let's face it guys, HP sells cars. Mazda knows this. Mazda needed this car to do well.

Yeah that will fool regular folks, but the slight torque oversight is not going to fool me. I was already "fooled" once on my Accord. Not again. To err once is human, to err twice is, well.......

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Is there room for improvement? Well based on what we have seen over in Mazda land, Mazda "could" spend R&D dollars and make the same enhancements that Honda made for the 2003 version of its V6 engine if they wanted to boost performance. If I understand correctly, the new Accord V6 makes more power than the old one due to a new intake manifold, air intake and exhaust set up as well as enhancements to the VTEC system. Well, us 6 folks have already pulled 20 extra hp and torque out of the Duratec in the 6 just by adding an Injen intake and a device made by an outfit called CP-E that changes the fuel trims to make the car not run so rich at WOT.

It's a little more than that on the Accord's engine enhancements. They also did head and port work along with a number of other things, and the Accord guys here can also pickup around that much power from intake and fuel tuning. Yeah, Mazda "could have" spent a ton more money on the Duratec. But they didn't. It's not nearly as developed as its "import" competitors.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

The 6 also makes use of the very same intake manifold as is found on a Taurus or any other Duratec 30. Mazda could re-design or enhance this piece to make better use of its variabile valve timing set up. And the exhaust, well that could always use some work.

It needs a lot of work, doesn't it.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Look, let's face it. I HAVE a 6s and can tell you that the Mazda version of the V6 is not a bad engine at ALL. However, I have a manual tranny. I have said this before on other boards, if I was an auto person, I am not sure I would have bought this car in an automatic. This engine needs to be at a boil to get the performance that is there out of it. Overall, the 6 is a very balanced performer which is what I like about it. Is it the macho **** man brag to your buddies HP monger of the world? No. But overall, it drives circles around the cars that are as far as I am concerned. I am not real concerned with my 1/4 mile times, or impressing my buddies by how much HP my car is rated for.

Yeah it handles quite good if that's what you were implying. But it's straight line performance leaves much to be desires, especially with an automatic. That's due to the "under developed" engine that I wish Mazda would improve. They're losing sales because of it.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

As someone who owns this car it is easy to go on the defensive about this stuff. Don't you think it might be a little tiring to have un-educated teenie bopers on this board say that the 6 is a Ford, its a bad car becasue it has a Ford engine, the 6 is a rebagged Taurus and on down the line........haters haters haters haters....... That's all it is.

You call us un-educated teenie boppers, yet we seem to know more about your car than you do. Your analysis of why the engine is down on torque is wrong, your argument about reliability is questionable at best, and you haven't even provided proof of original claims about "Porsche engineering". BTW, I even said that I think the 6 is an EXCELLENT car multiple times, but I just didn't like the engine. So in your closing remarks you accuse us of things we are not (uneducated) which is ridiculous. I make sure EVERY car gets a fair shake here just for that purpose. And you also try to put words in my mouth which I did not say (in fact I said the opposite) which makes you even more shady. I don't even own a Honda.

[SteVTEC]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Right, this is how I read this when someone says "its a Mazda engine and not a Duratec (UGH) and argues the point of reliability for 10 posts with me...... He thinks the Mazda engine can handle being turbocharged and the Duratec can't handle being supercharged......

Where the F did I ever say that? Yet again, I said any engine can handle some boost.

Listen, you need to stop posting and start THINKING. I'm putting you in timeout for 2 weeks. Everytime there's a thread involving you here, it quickly loses all objectivity and sight of facts, and just becomes a big stupid flame war. I'm tired of it. The next time another thread turns to crap like this thanks to you (accusing us of being uneducated and not knowing anything when you yourself don't even know what you're talking about and we prove it) I'm just banning you. You have one last chance to prove that you can be an intelligent, constructive, and contributing member of this forum.

Mazda 6s vs TSX. Bull**** point? No, what I said is absolutely true. I'd post up the analysis but it's 30-60 mins of work to get all the screen captures and then upload them and post (another hour for backup analysis). But you'd just call BS on that too, so what good would it do? None. You're too closed-minded and utterly biased to ever see it. Just like the last time I posted on VTEC.net. Maybe I'll get around to posting it on Acura-TSX.com one of these days. You can go there and flame. My buddy is an admin so then you become his problem and I don't have to deal with you.

[SteVTEC]

BTW, I'm tired of closing otherwise intelligent threads due to crap like this, so instead I'm just going to start temp or perma banning folks. Thread re-opened. I was going to get back to CaliAtenza on suggestions for improving performance, but I'm outta time now so maybe I'll get to it later.

[Plumaccordcoupe]

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Er......brex, if you read the thread, a guy named Plumaccord also made the same comment, and I am not sure, but based on the name.......I think he MIGHT......correct me if I am wrong........own........well........a Honda...........and be........correct me again if I am wrong........a boy............therefore being.........a HONDA-BOY.........

Just because I own a Honda doesn't mean I am biased . If I was biased I would never say the engine in my car was "lacking torque" or ever admit that it was slow . I was like that when I first came here but I eventually wised up and started to learn.

Originally Posted by Blue Mazda

Don't you think it might be a little tiring to have un-educated teenie bopers on this board say that the 6 is a Ford, its a bad car becasue it has a Ford engine, the 6 is a rebagged Taurus and on down the line........haters haters haters haters....... That's all it is.

Are you implying that I am a "teenie boper"?

I stated my reasons, yet you didn't bother responding to them and decided to call me names instead .

Your #14 post is just what Steve was talking about with Ford making the engine “good enough”. It’s basically excuses for not making a better engine. Honda did it with the J30A1 but learned from its mistakes.

Besides the engine, the Mazda6s is a great car overall. And if the engine was a bit better I would actually consider buying one whenever I decide to sell my car.

^ Look at that, a "Honda Boy" saying he would consider buying a Mazda sometime in the future .

[Genius6Spd]

I think the Mazda6 is a great car. I don't really like the front end that much, but the main problem was that it really isn't cheaper than the Accord when you add all of the options to the 6 that the Accord has stock. In the Taurus the 3.0L Duratec was known as a torque monster and also got great real world gas mileage (better than EPA). Why is it down on torque for the 6? Having a short stroke does affect low end torque. Nissan was able to extract a lot of low end torque due to its dual stage muffler. VVT can also affect low end torque as seen in Hondas, and this entirely depends on how it's configured.

0-60 in 7.4-7.7 for the AV6 is quite fast you know. The torquey Solara V6 with the 5 speed runs 7.0-7.5 while the auto did 8.0. This car had both a dual stage muffler and dual stage intake manifold. So there is no benefit to having more torque except for daily driving. At the track, the Solara was also well known for its traction problems on launch.

The Duratec needs a new name, but other than that, is a fine engine. It's been in use since '96, although remained unchanged until Mazda tweaked it, while the current Accord v6 argubly debuted in '94. I don't have any problems with Mazda sacrificing the low end for more top end power and revability.

[SteVTEC]

So I'm sitting at an airport and my flight is delayed by nearly 3 hours, so what do I do? Fire up the laptop and start surfing cached V6P content offline.

Well, looks like I got PLENTY of time and nothing to do, so here is the start of a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery long post.

Originally Posted by Genius6spd

I think the Mazda6 is a great car. I don't really like the front end that much, but the main problem was that it really isn't cheaper than the Accord when you add all of the options to the 6 that the Accord has stock.

Yeah, "stock" on the top-line EX, not the base LX which is what you would compare to the base 6s. I can do without the mandatory automatic on the Accord and get the standard manual tranny in the 6s which saves almost a grand right there. On top of that there's $1500 rebates on the 6 also. So pricing is very competetive. Due to much more diverse configuration options on the 6, I can get exactly what I want in that car. On the Accord I end up paying for stuff I don't want.

Originally Posted by Genius6spd

In the Taurus the 3.0L Duratec was known as a torque monster and also got great real world gas mileage (better than EPA).

Well I guess it's a matter of perspective. Compared to the pushrod Vulcan engine, sure. But one magazine described the Duratec as having a "dearth" of low-end torque. And with only 195 lb-ft of it I don't see how anybody could call it a torque beast when competitors almost all had over 200 lb-ft.

Originally Posted by Genius6spd

Why is it down on torque for the 6? Having a short stroke does affect low end torque. Nissan was able to extract a lot of low end torque due to its dual stage muffler.

Here is a direct quote from that technical white paper by Nissan that I mentioned above on the VQ engine.

SAE 940991: Development of a New-Generation Lightweight 3-Liter V6 Nissan Engine

Torque Characteristic --

The large-diameter bore
and short-stroke design of the VQ30DE engine give it a
large valve opening area relative to the total piston
displacement. As a result, the engine has ample potential
to provide a sufficient charging volume of air at high
speeds. However, a large valve opening area in the
low-speed range would reduce the air flow rate, making it
difficult to obtain any inertial effect and resulting in
insufficient charging efficiency. One of the main
challenges for the engine design, therefore, was to
increase the flow rate at low speeds in order to improve
charging efficiency.

That was accomplished in part by thoroughly
reducing friction losses, in addition to capitalizing on the
inherent potential for excellent charging efficiency at high
speeds. Friction torque was reduced by as much as 8 Nm
in the high-speed range and 4 Nm in the low-speed range
to improve engine torque output. Emphasis was then
focused on improving charging efficiency in the low-speed
range. To that end, aerodynamic intake ports were
adopted along with long intake manifold branches to
increase the air flow rate at low to intermediate speeds.
Furthermore, a cam profile with a small working angle was
adopted to advance the timing for closing the intake
valves and thereby improve charging efficiency in the
low-speed range.

As a result, the VQ30DE engine, without using any
variable valve timing control system, provides greater
torque in the low to intermediate speed range than a
current twin-cam V6 Nissan engine equipped with such a
mechanism. Torque output in the high-speed range
declined as a result of this tuning for low-speed
performance. Nonetheless,the high inherent potential of the VQ30DE engine
combined with the substantial reduction in friction losses
enable it to generate high-speed torque on a par with a
current twin-cam V6 Nissan engine. It thus achieves the
intended objective of providing a flat torque characteristic
from low to high speed.

They didn't mention a variable muffler because the original VQ30DE didn't even have one. The 00-01 VQ30DE-K and newer Nissans do, but it really doesn't affect the power curve significantly. You can't just take an engine that inherently favors high-end torque vs low-end, slap a variable muffer on it, and call it a day. It's not nearly that simple. Reading technical papers like these helps you to realize just how complex engines are and how much design work goes into them. On top of that, you pickup things that you'll probably never hear on forums like these, like the following.

Because direct-acting bucket tappets were adopted
and a variable valve timing control system is not used, the
oil supply quantities required by the engine have been
reduced. That made it possible to reduce the discharge
capacity of the oil pump, thereby decreasing pump
friction.

Most VVT systems today are oil pressure actuated. For that to function you need excess oil capacity and pressure, and for that you need a larger oil pump which increases friction. Honda's i-VTEC engines with both variable valve lift and phase must have much higher friction due to all of the oil pressure from the pump needed to drive all of it.

Originally Posted by Genius6spd

VVT can also affect low end torque as seen in Hondas, and this entirely depends on how it's configured.

True.

Originally Posted by Genius6spd

0-60 in 7.4-7.7 for the AV6 is quite fast you know. The torquey Solara V6 with the 5 speed runs 7.0-7.5 while the auto did 8.0.

This car had both a dual stage muffler and dual stage intake manifold. So there is no benefit to having more torque except for daily driving. At the track, the Solara was also well known for its traction problems on launch.

Here there are some major problems. A lot of members of my "hater" club have been going the extra mile to bash on me lately and crying foul for calling BS on them even when they provide "data and statistics" that backs them up. The problem comes when people make inherently flawed analysis' of said data and staistics, and then try to draw conclusions that the data simply doesn't support.

First you say that the Camry V6 auto only does 0-60 in 8.0s. There are plenty of examples here of the Camry doing 7.7s. You used the most favorable data for the Accord. But to be fair, you then also need to use the most favorable data for the Toyota. You did not. That makes your data incomplete, and the comparison unfair. And since you then tried to draw conclusions based on data that unfairly favors the Honda, that makes your conclusion flawed and inaccurate also. Your conclusion, that "there is no benefit to having more torque except for daily driving" was based on unfair data. On top of that, you're comparing different cars with different traction and different gearing and different tranny shift speeds, etc. There are too many variables. The data does not support the conclusion you're trying to make because of that.

But also, is the 0-60 metric even really a good test of "low-end"? In this case, perhaps not. The 0-60 test depends a lot on launch traction and the ability of the car to "hookup". After that you're in the mid-range and top-end all the way up. Gearing also has a major play as well. So 0-60 does not really test low-end. A better metric is 5-60, but this isn't a commonly tested metric. It takes away the launch (no 8k clutch dumps here), but since you still need at least one shift and are in the mid-range and top-end a lot it's still not a good low-end test. It's more of an engine flexibility test. With 1/4 mile tests, there's so much variability (noise) in the measurement from the driver's ability to actually "drive" the car on that specific day that you never really know what you're looking at until you have some real world data from actual owners with full production cars (not "tweaked" or un-tweaked pre-production test mules) to compare with. So there really isn't a good and commonly used performance metric out there that tests and favors low-end.

And here is where software simulation tools come in very handy, like CarTest, for $35. And unlike mag data, in software you can hold all real-world variables constant except for one, and then you're testing the one variable and not combinations of all others.


continued....