Renboy Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Every other Friday night I go to a kart track in Hamilton to race. Most of the time it's the same people that are there so you get to know them. Tonight I was talking to one of the guys there and found out he's a Mazda mechanic. Me: So you must know the millenia pretty well? Him: {rolls eyes} I hate that fucking car. Me: Why? Not a fan of working on it? Him: The whole thing's a gimmic, Miller Cycle Engine, why what's the point? Your car is faster (points at my mx6) than the millenia. Me: Even if my car was stock (which it isn't), it's 800lbs lighter and a manual. I don't mind the car, I just wish they'd designed the s/c to be rebuildable, and 21' of vacuum hose is rediculous. Him: Yeah, I have one of the s/c's in my garage. Me: {chickling} Yeah, I have two of them. Him: 21' of hose, that much? Me: {rolling eyes} Believe me, I'm positive. Me: Hey, does it really need premium? Him: I'm not sure, I know it calls for it, but I don't know. <-Not the answer I was looking for. Then some general car bullshit and it was time to race. Had to laugh about the whole conversation, even the Mazda mechanics don't like working under the hood of the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohamedeladawy@hotmail.com Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 hahah who would? stick with the KL. worked with it today. very fun and exciting. as for rotaries......whooooooole nother story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 It is a labour of love..... and a valiant nemesis for Ren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enginph Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 I really cant get the point of MCE. They say its efficient, bullshit. Maximas 3.0L has higher power with the same gas consumption. Lighter? With the s/c and other shits to make it work I dont think so. Emissions, who cares they are always below the legal level at first. MCE is hell hard/expensive to deal with. MCE has just slightly higher low rpm torque.. Dont know why we the small minority love our cars... It is a labour of love..... and a valiant nemesis for Ren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 The Miller Cycle is a good example of overengineering, albeit a pretty elegant one. What lets it down is way too complicated maintenance, like plug change. Why didn't they place a intercooler in front instead, like other manufacturers? I say stupid solution. And a turbo install will always be simpler and at least as effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Hey, there are GM engines out there where you have undo motor mounts and jack the engine to get the plugs. So the Miller takes 2 hours for a plug change. It is a glory to drive and be in a car that is unlike ALL the other rubber stamps out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted June 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 I don't blame the mce for bad gas mileage, I blame Mazda. You could take the most fuel efficient engine, put it in the wrong car, and end up with a gas pig. Because the displacement is so small, and the car so heavy, the engine always has to work hard to pull the car around. Instead of sitting at 14:1 a/f with a stronger/bigger engine, this one has to sit at 12.5:1 a/f to do it's job effectively. Just that small change in a/f and you've lost 12% efficiency. Not to mention, since it's boosted, it will always run richer than a NA engine to prevent detonation. Car companies in general are stupid. They always pomote the size of the engine and the hp/tq numbers, but never the curb weight of a vehicle. A 2000lbs car with 120 hp will be faster than the 2.3 Milly, will handle better, and unless it's designed like a billboard will get better fuel efficiency (by far). Not to mention, a lighter car is cheaper to build, less weight means less material, and less material means less money (to some extent). I wish I owned a car company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latinopikachu Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 It is a glory to drive and be in a car that is unlike ALL the other rubber stamps out there for this, i shall pay the price of dealing with a miller. MTS sums it up quite eloquently. -new signature line- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankzao Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Hey, there are GM engines out there where you have undo motor mounts and jack the engine to get the plugs. So the Miller takes 2 hours for a plug change. It is a glory to drive and be in a car that is unlike ALL the other rubber stamps out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted June 2, 2007 Report Share Posted June 2, 2007 a rebuildable S/C would be nice, but since there is no aftermarket support you'd pay almost the same price anyway unless you did it yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 It would of course be a DIY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enginph Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 If this is for KJ, isnt the point the output power? Whatever technology and displacement they put it provides 210hp for 3500lb, which was not that bad. MCE happens to provide the same power with smaller displacement. However my point is maximas 3.0L V6 provides the same power with the same fuel consumption which makes the fancy, expensive MCE useless. a/f is that mean air/fuel? and why it has to be 12.5:1? You talk like you are for lighter cars. I believe they dont have any choice. Mazda want to build a mercedes-bmw like car and it has to be heavy because there should be lots of stuff, larger AC compressor, generator, battery, tires, AT, lots of accessories, larger tank better chasis, lots of suspension parts, V6... Not sure about the actual reason of the weight though.. For handling, any car even hammer can be designed such that it handles well. Larger engine will have larger tires, which means better handling. I dont think cheap sports cars like mits eclipse handle better than milly although it is as fast. How does miata compare to milly? A wind blow on highway can change the lane of a lighter car, milly will stand straight.. The actual thing is although curb weight/power ratio is similar to a 120hp light car, milly is as low as if not lower than such a car, which gives better handling. The difference between a bmw and milly.. Another important point is that when you load a 2000lbs/120 hp car with 4 persons and two luggages lets say good for 500lbs, it will just die. Turn on the AC it will die.. Milly wont... Bottom line is 2000lbs/120hp car and 3500lbs/210hp car, they are in different classes, two different markets.. I don't blame the mce for bad gas mileage, I blame Mazda. You could take the most fuel efficient engine, put it in the wrong car, and end up with a gas pig. Because the displacement is so small, and the car so heavy, the engine always has to work hard to pull the car around. Instead of sitting at 14:1 a/f with a stronger/bigger engine, this one has to sit at 12.5:1 a/f to do it's job effectively. Just that small change in a/f and you've lost 12% efficiency. Not to mention, since it's boosted, it will always run richer than a NA engine to prevent detonation. Car companies in general are stupid. They always pomote the size of the engine and the hp/tq numbers, but never the curb weight of a vehicle. A 2000lbs car with 120 hp will be faster than the 2.3 Milly, will handle better, and unless it's designed like a billboard will get better fuel efficiency (by far). Not to mention, a lighter car is cheaper to build, less weight means less material, and less material means less money (to some extent). I wish I owned a car company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankzao Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 Definitely cannot take 4 adults and luggage in a 4cyl Toyota to the airport in the summer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Ren, which kart track is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excluesiveonez Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 but u can in a 4cyl nissan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted June 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Cameron on Upper James. Saint, there's other things to consider. The maxima is 300lbs lighter (curb), and has 20 less hp. Furthermore, it has a timing chain, which means it's interference (generally speaking not positive), which means no valve reliefs in the pistons. This causes a cleaner burn with less hot spots. Now onto the transmission, I know the Maxima's came with a 5 speed standard, which alone can save 5% on fuel consumption. I don't know the gear ratios of either tranny, but those make a difference too. Restrictive precats are also worth considering. Believe me, I'm not saying the MCE is faultless, all I'm saying is that if done properly could be a fantastic idea. And boosted cars all have higher a/f ratio's than NA. There's a higher chance of knock running lean with boost than running lean NA. If you shaved 400lbs off the milly, replaced the precats with headers (or something a little more free flowing) and added direct injection you would get at least 30% more gas mileage on the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excluesiveonez Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 direct inject... also more hp! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enginph Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Hmm. So why the hell they didnt use headers and DI so that it is really a gas saving yet powerful engine? Then one advantage of MCE is non-interference and no t-chain, quieter. Cameron on Upper James. Saint, there's other things to consider. The maxima is 300lbs lighter (curb), and has 20 less hp. Furthermore, it has a timing chain, which means it's interference (generally speaking not positive), which means no valve reliefs in the pistons. This causes a cleaner burn with less hot spots. Now onto the transmission, I know the Maxima's came with a 5 speed standard, which alone can save 5% on fuel consumption. I don't know the gear ratios of either tranny, but those make a difference too. Restrictive precats are also worth considering. Believe me, I'm not saying the MCE is faultless, all I'm saying is that if done properly could be a fantastic idea. And boosted cars all have higher a/f ratio's than NA. There's a higher chance of knock running lean with boost than running lean NA. If you shaved 400lbs off the milly, replaced the precats with headers (or something a little more free flowing) and added direct injection you would get at least 30% more gas mileage on the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excluesiveonez Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 yeh non interference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 I would much rather a chain though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excluesiveonez Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 nope.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 Uh yeah.... goddamn belts break... Fucking cheap ass solution to increase the chances of engine damage. Not so important with the MCE, but other high performance engine that are zero-clearance SHOULD not be belts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted June 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Chains break too. Ask anyone with a second generation Intrepid how they feel about timing chains. You saw yourself the condition of the milly belt after 200k. Not to mention chains have to be replaced too, and it's fucking expensive to replace the chain and all the guides. Not to mention, like Saint said, they're quieter. I'd much rather non-interference and belt than interference and chain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 But I had a BMW 325i that would eat belts every 90,000kms while the 320i would go forever on it's chain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.