Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    The “impending death of the internal combustion engine is overrated,” Says Mazda

      Mazda's believes there is more life in the internal combustion engine

    It may seem the internal combustion engine is on the last ropes as various automakers begin to put more efforts into electric vehicles and countries announcing bans on the sale of vehicles with these engines. But Mazda isn't willing to give it up with a fight.

    Robert Davis, Mazda North America Operations' senior vice president for special assignments told attendees at CAR Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City, Michigan this week that  the “impending death of the internal combustion engine is overrated.”

    “We certainly considered the adoption of new technologies, like battery electric vehicles, plug-ins, hybrids and the like Before we go to the time, effort and expense of adding electrification, we are convinced that a solid, efficient internal-combustion engine base is critical. The foreseeable future will use the internal-combustion engine as its main motive source, so that’s where the bulk of our engineering focus has been placed," said Davis.

    “Get the internal-combustion engine right, and it makes the whole system that much more efficient when you layer in electric systems, such as idle-stop, high-power charging systems with regenerative braking and ultimately series or parallel hybrids.”

    Due to Mazda being a small automaker, they cannot extend their limited r&d resources into developing different powertrains such as electrics and hybrids. They're basically going with 'run what ya brung'.

    Davis was also critical of governments trying to mandate particular types of powertrains to meet standards. Instead, it should be the industry to find the best solution.

    “What we need as an industry is a target, and we need to be left to find the best, most customer-acceptable way to reach that," Davis explained.

    “Take the $7,500 EV credit off the table? At the same time, you take the EV mandate off the table. Let the government keep the $7,500 and let the industry find the best way to meet the clean air standard. Make it a (carbon-dioxide emissions) target, a grams-per-mile target, a fuel-economy number, whatever feels best. But don’t mandate that we have to sell a particular type of powertrain,”

    It needs to be noted that Mazda is working on an EV for certain markets that will be launched in the coming years, using tech from Toyota.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Wards Auto

    Edited by William Maley

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Understandable and should be an expected response from a tiny auto company that cannot fund a wide range of R&D options. As such, I still think Mazda will no be an individual player in 10-15 years. I also expect China and Europe to go through a consolidation phase of auto companies.

    I think the US was the first and will not be the last to go with a auto consolidation phase. Time will tell if I am right.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, balthazar said:

    'Dieselgate' is about cheating the standards illegally, not air cleanliness.


    5 hours ago, dfelt said:

    Understandable and should be an expected response from a tiny auto company that cannot fund a wide range of R&D options. As such, I still think Mazda will no be an individual player in 10-15 years. I also expect China and Europe to go through a consolidation phase of auto companies.

    I think the US was the first and will not be the last to go with a auto consolidation phase. Time will tell if I am right.

    Agree that Mazda may not hang around forever.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Not everyone can afford a brand new hybrid that costs $30k+.  Until there is a glut of those types of cars on the used market at a very reasonable price, people will be pumping gas into their daily drivers for quite some time.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Posts

    • Lyriq Chief Engineer, Jamie Brewer, recently explained to GM Authority that the team decided to prioritize rear cargo space over two separate cargo areas. Thus, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq will have a larger traditional rear storage area. In fact, according to Brewer, that enables the Lyriq to boast the “largest cargo volume in its competitive set.” That made us wonder what, exactly, is the Lyriq’s competitive set. According to Cadillac spokesperson, Katie Minter, it consists of the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace. “Lyriq is aimed at customers that are looking for a luxury SUV with outstanding styling, ride and handling and seamlessly integrated technology. In this instance, we’re looking at vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace,” Minter told GM Authority in an emailed statement. So then, Lyriq has a maximum cargo volume of 60.8 cubic feet behind the first row seats and 28.0 cubic feet behind the second row. When compared to the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-Pace, the Lyriq does offer more space in the back. 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Cargo vs. e-tron I-Pace   Cadillac Lyriq Audi e-tron Jaguar I-Pace Rear cargo volume behind second row (cu. ft.) 28.0 28.5 25.3 Rear cargo volume behind first row (cu. ft.) 60.8 56.5 51.0 Frunk cargo volume (cu. ft.) N/A 2.12 0.95 Total front & rear cargo volume (cu. ft.)* 28.0 30.62 26.25 * With second row seats upright However, both the e-tron and the I-Pace feature frunks (2.12 cubic feet in the e-tron, 0.95 cubic feet in the I-Pace respectively), allowing the e-tron to have slightly more total cargo volume (combined frunk and rear cargo area). https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/05/heres-why-the-2023-cadillac-lyriq-doesnt-have-a-frunk/  
    • That's probably a better worded way to put it. It's a missed opportunity.  They're all liquid cooled at this point and I can't imagine Ford and Tesla are having battery cooling issues, at least I haven't heard of any yet and I've watched a fair amount on the Mach-E and know somebody with a pair of Teslas in Nevada.  I don't believe lack of cooling has ever been a factor in an EV catching fire. It's always something shorting and sparking with poor connection(s) somewhere.  I'd also like to learn why. They have to have a good justification, I know they're not a bunch of idiots who "didn't think of it".  I just don't want the press release answer of "we needed the space for packaging". 
    • Hummer EV (and Silverado EV) are much bigger and truckular...so they have a lot more space underneath for the dirty bits.   The Lyriq isn't a high riding 4x4, so it has to use space for the electric motor(s), power brake system, HVAC, radiator, etc under the hood...
    • Ive read that the Lyriq has a 5 link suspension system front and back.  Maybe that suspension set-up limits the space for the Lyriq?
    • Lack of a frunk in the Lyriq for me, not necessarily looks like a mistake.  I dont feel like it might be a mistake.  A lost opportunity to offer a tad more storage space is how I would classify it rather than it being aa mistake. Because I reserve my opinion to see how GM's Ultium platform is engineered and utilized.  Yes, there is free space up there in the front.  If GM engineered it for the use for powertrain bits, computing ECUs, electrical harnesses  or whatnot instead of cramming those where the batteries are and limiting cooling hardware and other stuff limiting the cooling space for batteries, then Id say a job well done for GM engineering.   Batteries, with what Ive read on them, need space and hardware to properly cool.  All others cram all kinds of stuff in that batteerry space just to have a frunk.  That is one solution that benefits the consumer for storage. But if cooling is not adequate, then it takes away from that advantage and becomes a disadvantage in another way in some form or other. If GM managed to have their batteries perform better than Ford or Tesla because they took away the consumer's advantage for a frunk, but gave the consumers a better performing battery, then the consumer has that as an advantage. Remember, batteries do catch on fire after and insufficient cooling might actual be a cause regardless how good Tesla cools their batteries....or anybody else's battery tech... Including GM's Bolt.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/22/tesla-fire-sacramento/ Maybe GM and LG have learned a lesson and maybe this is a solution?   I dont know as I dont know how GM uses the frunk space for the Lyriq.    I itching to learn more about it though.  Would be interesing to know why the Hummer EV has a frunk and the Lyrriq does not.  Is it because the Hummer has an abundance of space underneath where thee batteries go and the Lyriq is best engineered to use the frunk space instead?  
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bobo
      (54 years old)
    2. loki
      (39 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets


  • Create New...