Thats a good observation - It refers to Israel in the over 95 but under 98 and barring some research 95 or 98 octane should be just that ! If anyone knows if Mazdas emissions systems for Israel bound units is different sound off - ? Or the fuel grades above 98 there are wacked? - I cant see why in the US ( per owners manual ) 91+ or higher is pretty clear - I can find 100 octane but seriously dont think its worth it - yet using preimum with a 13.5 compression ratio engine is a must for me - 91 or 93 -

to answer your question ...I dont think it has anything to do with ethanol -

 

It really does not make much difference anyway. The fuel that is even the komunist state of Kalifornia will still run a Mazda engine just fine!
Besides most forums and this forum specifically there are very few real performances gear heads that finding non oxygenated fuel would make any difference to the majority of members. And even the subject of octane is really simple. But we can all make it more difficult ...It easy If you want the best of what you have run premium fuel. If you want to save a buck then buy the least cost per gallon lowest recommend fuel for you Mazda. Everything else is "white noise".

 

Yup!!
Here is some more info... using 87 octane instead of 91+ octane can range up to about 13% reduction in (HP) power or another way to look at it about 25+ real HP off the engine. So that's translates into even a greater reduction in WHP say about an additional 6-10%
This can be verified by anyone having there Mazda Dyno'd.
Or you can us an accelerometer and get real world on the starters power measurements. See Autometer D-PIC. Very real world accurate

2650-1132.pdf


Auto Meter Ultra Lite Series, D-PIC -2G-+2G (Full Sweep Electric)

 

You are saying this is true for the NA motor?

If so it makes no sense why Mazda would list a difference for the 2.5T motor, but say nothing about the NA motor getting more power from premium fuel. Why wouldn't they want folks to know this?

 

First I did NOT state Mazda but this is a rule known universally in the Performance world perhaps more?
You are good at looking into facts go look for yourself and learn!
It is also a universal rule of thumb so give or take a little and goes to all 4 of the gasoline inductive systems, normally aspirated fuel injection, normally aspirated carbureted, Turbocharged, Supercharged. We can go into pretty close or exact numbers if you wish but you would have to Chassi Dyno your Mazda and post or give me the exact DALTAS set by the Dyno operator, the completed graph unaltered (no SAE smoothing) and your exact fuel information used.

I have said numerous times on this forum that Mazda does not participate in being able to actually make available and print or place under any of their specification the real power numbers because they do not have them certified. Almost every www information about them is assumed to be accurate and simply passed on so much that it became a false fact about the power ratings. There are few that purchased a new Mazda and then had it DYNO'd and almost as few that did road tests for article doing the same. They all go by the information available by the OE and there claims to engine power.
I personally know that they are not what they claim. Thats really all I am going to say about that!!
Unfortunately, any on this forum we have no current and active members that have had any of their Mazda's DYNO tested while stock in years. But then we also don't have any resent member that has upgraded their Mazda with more than a a CAI and exhaust in some time as well. (specifically speaking about the Skyactiv engines from 2015 to present N/A and Turbocharged) . Heck there is not even any member in 6 years that even did a wet certified weighing of their Mazda either. As well doing a 0-60 and 60-0 or 1/8 0r full 1/4 mile run to see actual performance numbers???



Approved by SAE-confirmed expert witnesses, these tests measure an engine’s net and gross horsepower to provide accurate data to engineers and consumers. Our Certified Power database lists engines that have passed J1349 and or J1995 testing procedures.

bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=239c586372b00c4c451e3025ae2fa976f052bcbf601 050bc6c6a277b4e4fa8d2JmltdHM9MTc1ODU4NTYwMA&ptn=3& ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=304415dd-490f-6eb9-28c5-03ad48b06f7c&psq=J1349+and+or+J1995+testing+proced ures.&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2FlLm9yZy9zdGFuZGFyZHMv ZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQvZ3JvdW5kLXZlaGljbGUvY2VydGlmaWVkLX Bvd2Vy&ntb=1SAE J1349® and SAE J1995® give manufacturers the means to ensure that an engine delivers at its advertised performance. Approved by SAE-confirmed expert witnesses, these tests measure an engine’s net and gross horsepower to provide accurate data to engineers and consumers. Our Certified Power database lists engines that have passed J1349 and or J1995 testing procedures.

SAE J2723® specifies the procedure to be used for a manufacturer to certify the net power and torque rating of an engine according to SAE J1349® or the gross engine power of a production engine according to SAE J1995®.

Manufacturers who advertise their engine power and torque ratings as certified to SAE J1349® or SAE J1995® shall follow the procedure listed in SAE J2723®. Certification of engine power and torque to SAE J1349® or SAE J1995® is voluntary; however, this power certification process is mandatory for those advertising power ratings as “Certified to SAE J1349” or “Certified to SAE J1995.”

 

Well, if I had to guess there is no real point most don't read their complete owners' manuals (obvious by some of the questions ask on threads that the answer was in their owner's manual) and to many owners that think they know how things work have their solid belief systems. Otherwise called a DIY
This goes back to understanding the complete inductive system the HIGH compression ratio ( see how compression ratio is measured and the complete understand of that term) ( I love when someone does a compression test on an early parts emissions full 1980s engine with 8.5 cr and a then a Mazda 12 or 13.1 cr and they are the same results) values and how Mada's ECU compensates through its ECU programing to adjust for Turbocharger under boost and a N/A under power engine speeds.
Plus if they only post the basic fuel usage information, they are covered liability wise (the warranty) as well not to lose their standards placed by different countries pertaining to regulation like EPA. This is also why you don't see any mention of oxygenated fuels with Mazda pertaining to what fuel recommendation to use. At least not yet. It is the same with most all the other auto manufactures as well.
You do realize that should your engine fail, and MAZDA can show that you used an oxygenated fuel it could affect the warranty less in favor of you. We cant claimed that has not yet happened because Mazda does not make available all the warranties adjustments approved or not but specifically on the ones they take care of and there is to the best of my knowledge no record information that can be obtained for this not even by Mazda dealer inquiry.
Test: Try as one example looking at the number of actual number of engines that the valve guides seals were replaced under warranty. That was a resent one that got some action a few times on this forum in the last year. Logically and naturally this information does not apply to safety recall information which are made public to some degree.

 

One could guess , that " cost of ownership " per year --a factor is fuel cost - sales -

 

I just read both of your posts to me and will summarize my response to both posts in this one.

I understand completely your stance on Mazda's hp/tq numbers. Not an issue. The thing is, let's say you are right and Mazda's numbers are not standardized against other makers who do follow the test spec you frequently mention. Mazda has to use something to get the ratings they list on their web site for the power outputs of their engines, and it would make zero sense for them not to use the same dynomometer for all their tests. So, relatively speaking, if Mazda says the 2.5NA motor makes 187hp on 87 octane and the 2.5T motor makes 227hp on 87, there is a 40hp spread between the 2 motors with 87 octane fuel (again, according to the dyno Mazda uses). If the 2 engines were dynoed on a machine approved by you with all the parameters you like, they should still have a 40hp spread between them, right (unless they use completely different dynos for each motor, right?) If not I would love to hear your reasoning.

You also mentioned something about using "oxygenated" fuel (fuel with 10% ethanol is what I assume you mean?) and Mazda denying warranty. Not sure where you are going with this as the fuels we use in the US are standardized. There is no requirement by Mazda not to use 10% ethanol fuel as one would be in quite a pickle in many areas. Fuel free of ethanol is not easy to find. The warranty doesn't specify one has to use ethanol free fuel, just 87 octane (or 91+ octane for full output on the 2.5T and 3.3 turbo S models).

Obviously you have done a lot of modifications and dyno testing of your Mazda 3. That is great for you. I have no interest in finding a dyno to have my CX-5 2.5T tested. Even if I did, I am sure you would find loads of issues with the way I did it and would want reams of documentation to prove anything.

I am going to add a small bit after doing what you asked and did some quick Googling to find if anyone had posted dynos of a stock 2.5T. I found a person who tested a stock 2018 2.5T (I would assume they had a CX-9 as that was only Mazda with that engine in 2018).

https://www.mazda6club.com/threads/2...esults.448517/

They had it tested on a Dynojet in Florida at 70F with 93 octane fuel. It posted numbers of 227hp and about 280 ft/lbs - this would be WHP - obviously on a chassis dyno. If we use the standard calculation for driveline loss, 1.2 for an AWD car, which I will assume with the turbo, we would expect 208hp if it had 250 at the crank. If it was a FWD version it would be 1.1 or 227hp. So either way, it makes Mazda's 250hp claim on premium gas pretty believable.

 

From my experience most shops with dyno's don't get them calibrated because there is no legal requirement and their only good for before and after comparison.

 

Nice research, but I can’t respond with the flaws. Unfortunately I have been advised (strongly warned) to no longer correct members on threads in my normal fashions but to post my information and let them decide. BTW I know the shop that did the Dyno they are close to my business pardoner and we have used them a few times and know what they do for their customers. I will call the the owner tomorrow for sheets and giggles. what I said to you I would need from you which is not in the video or the Dyno graph that already shows adjusted and does not show all the information.
I can tell you that the myth about calculating estimation regarding engine and whp has been wrong for decades. . Those of us that had both engine and chassis Dyno helped prove that about the mid 80s

And lastly You did not read exactly what I said about power publication standards clearly. IDK maybe it’s how I authored it . Lol