Mazda 6 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok got the reflash. Today as I was accelerating from low rpm's the engine goes thump thump thump and then finally accelerates. It was just a minor lag in power but the strange thumping was differnt. Anyone else expereince this issue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
Yup. I've had a sudden surge after a lag. My uneducated assumption was the that engine is misfiring. Happens when I put the throttle to the floor after coasting for a bit. So far I've only been able to reproduce it when I'm in a gear just below 3K rpm.

Any insight would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Yup. I've had a sudden surge after a lag. My uneducated assumption was the that engine is misfiring. Happens when I put the throttle to the floor after coasting for a bit. So far I've only been able to reproduce it when I'm in a gear just below 3K rpm.

Any insight would be appreciated.
[/b]
I could just be the computer 'relearning' the engine after the re-flash. See if it still does it after a few days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
Nope, I've had this off and on since before the first reflash. It would precipitate complete power loss before, now it just happens then the car recovers and drives fine. It used to last 1-2 secs, after the second (early Aug) reflash it has happened once and lasted less than 1 sec. Usually when accelerating from 2500 rpm in a higher gear (never had it in 1-4, and never when I was really pushing it). It's not a misfire because that would set an engine code (and there aren't any) so it has to be the same old thing: computer senses a condition it thinks is close to ping and shuts down the fuel, throttle or spark till it thinks things have improved. I've emailed Mazda about it, and everyone who's still experiencing it should do the same. Possibly also contact NHTSA to see if we can induce another recall to REALLY fix the problem. Without notchy power gremlins this would be a KILLER ride. I still love it, it'd just be perfect then (well, with light 17" wheels and maybe a CAI and exhaust and slight drop and better shocks...).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
I notice this in 6th gear. It feels like I hit an invisible rumble strip for 1 - 2 seconds. I can confirm it happens when accelerating hard from low rpms. Hard to reproduce, but has happend 4 - 5 times before. It happend before and After the reflash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,083 Posts
I haven't had the reflash yet but have had this lag before the rush of power. It comes and goes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
the common theam to everyones posts here is lugging the engine in 5th - but usually 6th gear. Not good to lug the engine in any car, let alone the MS6. I bet if you downshifted a gear before accelerateing - you wouldnt have this problem anymore....or accelerate slower for a little but in your current gear and get to a higher rpm before getting into boost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
the common theam to everyones posts here is lugging the engine in 5th - but usually 6th gear. Not good to lug the engine in any car, let alone the MS6. I bet if you downshifted a gear before accelerateing - you wouldnt have this problem anymore....or accelerate slower for a little but in your current gear and get to a higher rpm before getting into boost.
[/b]
Sounds like the problem lies between the seat and the gas pedal.

Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
Sounds like the problem lies between the seat and the gas pedal.

Jason
[/b]
Accelerating from 2500 rpm when the turbo has already started to kick in isn't exactly "lugging" the car. In fact, it usually happens above 3k!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Actually know that I think about it I had same issue once before the reflash. Is there an effort to get this in recall status?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,256 Posts
I always think when driving a stickshift or manual, not to rely on the techo too much but rather the feel of your engine when to change or shift instead of what RPM to change. Perhaps I was lucky in a sense that my first manual car has no techo at all, so have to rely on the sense of the engine :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,647 Posts
Sounds like the problem lies between the seat and the gas pedal.

Jason
[/b]
damn right,, never put that kinda load on the engine, especially how heavy our cars are. Its not only good for gas milage its easier on the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
You've mentioned this before, Cowbell. The generally understood information is that granny shifting at WOT is the best for fuel economy. Which would imply accelerating from 2k or less in each gear. If you have some proof to refute this I'd love to hear it?

Also, in 30+ years of driving, no one has ever before implied that driving a car IN the power band but low rpms is hard on the engine! Every ATX car in the world is programmed to stay in a higher gear unless you step on it hard enough to trigger a downshift. My turbo Volvo (which I put 185k miles on without ANY engine problems) didn't want to downshift in 4th unless you truly stomped it to the floor-it was accelerating from 1800 rpms in 4th gear every time I passed someone (which I did a lot).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
You've mentioned this before, Cowbell. The generally understood information is that granny shifting at WOT is the best for fuel economy. Which would imply accelerating from 2k or less in each gear. If you have some proof to refute this I'd love to hear it?

Also, in 30+ years of driving, no one has ever before implied that driving a car IN the power band but low rpms is hard on the engine! Every ATX car in the world is programmed to stay in a higher gear unless you step on it hard enough to trigger a downshift. My turbo Volvo (which I put 185k miles on without ANY engine problems) didn't want to downshift in 4th unless you truly stomped it to the floor-it was accelerating from 1800 rpms in 4th gear every time I passed someone (which I did a lot).
[/b]
Autos also have less gears which equates to larger power bands within each gear. You have a 4cyl car, anything under 2000-2500 is lugging this beast. In my ls1, I could go down to 1500-1800 and not have a problem. Mainly because it was a v8, NA, and was meant to run that low. Hell, 6th gear at 80mph was a measly 2200rpm. That's how you get 32mpg hwy in a v8.

Jason
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Also, in 30+ years of driving, no one has ever before implied that driving a car IN the power band but low rpms is hard on the engine! Every ATX car in the world is programmed to stay in a higher gear unless you step on it hard enough to trigger a downshift. My turbo Volvo (which I put 185k miles on without ANY engine problems) didn't want to downshift in 4th unless you truly stomped it to the floor-it was accelerating from 1800 rpms in 4th gear every time I passed someone (which I did a lot).
[/b]
Ummm...you can't compare an auto trans car to a manual, you still have the convertor to help with tQ multiplication in low RPMS...you can't lug an auto trans car...but you can a manual, if the car is starting to lug you're in the wrong gear, pretty obvious stuff.

The generally understood information is that granny shifting at WOT is the best for fuel economy. Which would imply accelerating from 2k or less in each gear. If you have some proof to refute this I'd love to hear it? [/b]
That is retarded, granny shifting at WOT for best economy, that's insane. You will get your WORST economy that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
the common theam to everyones posts here is lugging the engine in 5th - but usually 6th gear. Not good to lug the engine in any car, let alone the MS6. I bet if you downshifted a gear before accelerateing - you wouldnt have this problem anymore....or accelerate slower for a little but in your current gear and get to a higher rpm before getting into boost.
[/b]
I have had it happen in several differnt gears and it happens around 2800 to 3000 RPM. Not lugging the engine. Perhaps I expereince this more because I commute 80-100 miles a day in mountains and then in urban traffic. I shift gears every minute so I have lots of opportunities to cause this bug. I bought the car bacause of the powerband at 3000 RPM. Why should I have to rev the engine to 4000 RPM to avoid a design flaw?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
I have had it happen in several differnt gears and it happens around 2800 to 3000 RPM. Not lugging the engine. Perhaps I expereince this more because I commute 80-100 miles a day in mountains and then in urban traffic. I shift gears every minute so I have lots of opportunities to cause this bug. I bought the car bacause of the powerband at 3000 RPM. Why should I have to rev the engine to 4000 RPM to avoid a design flaw?
[/b]
although I only have 800 miles I've yet to discover any power loss, bug, bucking, lugging, anything...no power delivery issues whatsoever. We'll see if that continues to be the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
Ummm...you can't compare an auto trans car to a manual, you still have the convertor to help with tQ multiplication in low RPMS...you can't lug an auto trans car...but you can a manual, if the car is starting to lug you're in the wrong gear, pretty obvious stuff.

That is retarded, granny shifting at WOT for best economy, that's insane. You will get your WORST economy that way.
[/b]
The turbo is spooling by 2000 rpm, the maximum torque is available from 3000 rpm, there's no low rpm lurching and the car operates 19/20 times perfectly fine from 3000 rpm in 6th. This is not lugging and well inside the power band. Once in a while, the computer misreads the situation and cuts spark and or fuel for 1/2-2 seconds. That's not bad driving it's bad programming!

Please provide documentation that WOT/granny shifting is cause for the worst economy? Car Talk, multiple tech articles in the Wisconsin State Journal, articles on economy in Time magazine all agree that WOT provides the best volumetric efficiency (note, this is at low RPMs). I've never seen a reference article that said the opposite but I'm always ready to learn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Please provide documentation that WOT/granny shifting is cause for the worst economy? Car Talk, multiple tech articles in the Wisconsin State Journal, articles on economy in Time magazine all agree that WOT provides the best volumetric efficiency (note, this is at low RPMs). I've never seen a reference article that said the opposite but I'm always ready to learn.
[/b]
Car talk? Those fools??? ROTFLMAO! They are low grade morons at best.

Volumetric efficiency? that in and of itself does NOT equate to the best gas mileage...sorry. :rofl:

Volumetric efficiency is a measure of how much air your engine pumps relative to it's displacement.
Air is the limiting reagent in the chemical reaction, more air lets you use more fuel.

The fact is for the best MPG..... the increase in pumping losses with less than WOT use at low RPM's is more than offset by the losses exhibited by requirements of additional fuel WOT/low RPM technique requires versus partial throttle low RPM driving technique.

Your best gas mileage will occur with you operating the throttle in a manner that provides the most vacuum at the intake manifold...which is VERY LIGHT throttle useage...NOT WOT useage.


How about real world testing FTW?

The fact is you will get the worst mileage that way.

Total nonsense.

Go try it for a tank and see for yourself.

The turbo is spooling by 2000 rpm, the maximum torque is available from 3000 rpm, there's no low rpm lurching and the car operates 19/20 times perfectly fine from 3000 rpm in 6th. This is not lugging and well inside the power band. Once in a while, the computer misreads the situation and cuts spark and or fuel for 1/2-2 seconds. That's not bad driving it's bad programming!
[/b]
This is off the exact direction of the discussion, but.....This statement of yours has nothing to do with the fact you tried to compare an auto trans to a manual with it's shift points and such. No valid direct comparision can be made. An auto can be in 3rd gear at a very low RPM thanks to the convertor, a manual can not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
WL, I guess we're just going to have to disagree. You haven't provided any authority for your contention about fuel economy and any reasoning by analogy and so on won't help. I don't have the patience to do a full tank of granny shifting (I can live with decreased gas mileage).

As to the other argument, the implication was that all of us having troubles with irregular power delivery at 3000 rpm in 6th were idiots for actually trying to accelerate at 3000 rpm in 6th. My comment about automatics was simply to illustrate one case of where engines weren't "lugging" at far less rpms than that. Fine, disagree with the example, but please explain to me how accelerating at 3000 rpm (well within the power band of the engine) is abusing the engine or lugging it? The original problem is that rarely, at 3000 rpm, the engine stumbles because of computer problems, that doesn't make accelerating from 3000 rpm stupid, dangerous or wrong. Please offer something more here than opinion and vitriol.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top