Our long-term 2012 Mazda 3i Touring SkyActiv is equipped with a 6-speed electronically-controlled SkyActiv sport auto transmission and has a torque converter with electronic lockup, with overdrive in 5th and 6th gears for good fuel economy.
Several of my colleagues have reported many good things about this transmission. And they're right. Acceleration is very smooth in our Mazda 3 -- there's almost no shift shock. And shift timing once you're rolling is fine too.
But here's the thing...
(Photo by Kurt Niebuhr)
When moving from a standstill our Mazda 3 is a slug. With 154 hp and 148 lb-ft of torque from the SkyActiv engine I was expecting more. I understand that this powertrain was tuned for fuel economy over sportiness, but the Mazda TV ads are saying you can have both.
Not really. With this 6AT normal acceleration feels smooth and sedate, but boring and slow. If you try to accelerate quickly, you'll get a big downshift and a full-body lunge forward from the shift shock. It's not pleasant. And that 6AT is reluctant to downshift, in the name of fuel economy of course.
I was surprised to find out that a 6MT is available with SkyActiv. I wish we could have gotten that version instead, because the rest of the car is quite nice for a subcompact.
Come to think of it, off the top of my head, I cannot think of any small car that I like equipped with an automatic transmission. I believe that every itty bitty car I like (the Base Mini Cooper and Ford Fiesta, for example) has been equipped with a MT. You just have better control of those small engines, and can rev it or short-shift as you like. Larger engines with their greater power, and especially torque, can get by with an AT.
What do you think? Is there any small car you've driven with an AT that had good performance?
The video breaks down the SkyActiv 6AT and 6MT.
Albert Austria, Senior VE Engineer @ 4,455 miles
rod_stewart says:
03:34 PM, 01/30/12
I believe the Hyundai Elantra does quite nicely with it's 6AT but it may be the exception......
Also the MZ3 is not a subcompact its just a compact.
-Rod
agentorange says:
04:09 PM, 01/30/12
You face two problems.
1) CAFE has encouraged manufacturers to run the highest gearing and most reluctant downshifts they can get away with to maximise the city rating.
2) You probably have a CA spec car, unless all SkyActiv cars are 50 state legal. In my experience CARB vehicles are reluctant to fuel up and go at low revs. I have owned or rgularly driven two CARB spec vehicles and it was two too many.
aspade says:
04:18 PM, 01/30/12
It's a 3,000 lb car with a 1998cc eco engine. Of course it sucks, what do you expect?
northsparrow says:
04:55 PM, 01/30/12
Trade it in for a manual now!
seppoboy says:
05:10 PM, 01/30/12
There are no good small cars with smaller-displacement engines and automatic transmissions. The world is full of tradeoffs, and in the car world it divides into two completely separate spheres.
If you want lots of power, or need truck-like utility and hauling capacity, you need to get a large displacement engine or a turbo with plenty of power to move all that mass. You will be stuck paying for a lot of fuel used, though.
If you want good economy and something other than a complete slug, get a properly-engineered car that maximizes space utilization (a hatchback or wagon is ideal for this purpose) coupled with a well-engineered small displacement engine. Then control it properly with a manual transmission, so you can negate the tradeoffs as best you can. When you don't need the speed, you can shift early; when you need sudden responsiveness, choose the right gear and wind out the engine if need be.
You can't fight simple physics and market realities, to get a reasonably priced vehicle you must accept one or the other path. Modern small cars with safety and convenience equipment simply weigh too much to be propelled adequately with a small engine coupled to anything but the most efficient and adaptable transmission. The driver can compensate with a good manual transmission, but mechanical losses in automatics and automated manuals and CVT's will always fail to meet various road conditions in the real world.
h2omojo says:
05:43 PM, 01/30/12
I really don't get all the disdain for autos on here. Not all of us are driving our cars for performance and obsess over getting a manual. I drive 80 miles a day in traffic and the last thing I want to do is constantly shift gears. Can we quit beating the dead horse for just a bit and stop complaining about not having a manual?
altimadude05 says:
06:01 PM, 01/30/12
You don't buy an economy car for racing between the lights. I think the dichotomy between high performance cars (Mustang, NSX, etc) and economy cars (Jetta, Sonic, 3) is part of the trouble. If you're used to traveling a mile a minute, then traveling a mile in 50 seconds takes an eternity.
woochifer says:
07:29 PM, 01/30/12
Totally different story when using the shift-gate in manual mode. Something tells me you haven't tried that yet (or you just won't like any AT in a compact car, period).
Part of the reason why so many of your colleagues like this AT is the quick and direct gear engagement, and rev matching on the downshifts. This gearbox is big step up from the AT that Mazda uses with the MZR drivetrain. I was undecided between the MT and AT, but one too many test drives in stop-and-go traffic, and the direct feel on the Skyactiv AT tilted things for me.
blueguydotcom says:
07:45 PM, 01/30/12
AT = the suck in all cars.
sideswiper says:
09:18 PM, 01/30/12
VW/Audi's solution solves this: DSG. Yes there are other great dual clutch transmissions, but not in competitively priced cars.
billt9 says:
10:33 PM, 01/30/12
Before this stupid "manual shift mode" craze, automatics used to have a Ds position, for sport/hills where revs are held higher. That works better than this "manual shift mode" position, which is a hassle.
dylanmitchel says:
10:33 PM, 01/30/12
I'd also prefer a manual in this 3. Sky Activ promises lower weight and I'm hopeful the new 3 will be lighter. The 2012 3 has the old chassis with the Sky Activ Engine and Transmissions.
A lighter platform paired with this engine and manual may make for a quicker and more drivers oriented car.
duck87 says:
06:26 AM, 01/31/12
I think a manual transmission is just about required on all small displacement vehicles, because ATs really do suck a significant amount of power out of them just because of the way a torque converter works. Then again, most people are fine with the acceleration, and this 6AT sounds MUCH improved over the crappy old one.
The other problem is that Mazda has a tendency to slightly over-rate their engines, and the Skyactiv engine is hobbled by being an atkinson style engine. Mazda made the engine undersquare to boost low-end torque caused by this configuration, but as you can see it's still a compromise. Unfortunately, this IS what you get when you tailor an engine design towards fuel efficiency.
@sideswiper: Unfortunately, DSGs will never offer the same level of smoothness as a real AT gearbox, with planetary gearsets.
dougnuts says:
07:30 AM, 01/31/12
I must be in the minority, because I'm perfectly happy with the performance of our '06 Mazda3 with 2.3L and 5 speed auto. Is it fast? Well, I have my choice of a CTS-V or a '97 Civic 1.6, both manuals, and the Mazda3 slots comfortably in the middle. When I'm shopping a car like the Mazda3, I'm looking for adequate performance and comfort during the commute, coupled with some semblance of fuel economy. In my experience, this is best accomplished with an engine that has decent torque and an efficient automatic. Daily driving the Civic during the last few months makes me long for a car that I don't have to rev to the moon to get it to move quickly.
With the upcoming mileage standards, the company that finds the best solutions will have a huge advantage - turbos are one helper and so is compression (Mazda's choice). I also look forward to their diesel engine, but that's a year or so out.
y8s says:
07:56 AM, 01/31/12
Mazda package limitation. You can't get the manual transmission with features like Nav and moon roof and ... well the expensive stuff.
greenpony says:
10:15 AM, 01/31/12
I was so dismayed with small-car AT performance that I bought a MT econobox. The difference is night and day. Maybe things have changed in the last five years, but I'm not convinced enough to go back to an AT, even if they do shift smoother and get better fuel economy.
stovt001 says:
10:57 AM, 01/31/12
@h2omojo: When I used to commute in traffic I preferred my MT Miata over our AT Taurus. It would crawl along in 1st gear at a much better (read slower) speed than the Taurus. And if traffic picked up, it just took a little throttle application to keep up. Our Taurus, on the other hand is brake-coast-brake-coast-brake-coast and so on and so on.
thenewblack says:
11:21 AM, 01/31/12
I just went from a manual to a Acura automatic and I'm perfectly happy with it. Just sayin...
haunty says:
11:42 AM, 01/31/12
I'd like to see a comparison between the AT Mazda 3 and other vehicles in the same class, like 0-60 and quarter mile times.
eldaino2 says:
01:57 PM, 01/31/12
@duck87:
but they do mitigate the performance penalty associated with regular automatics.
problem is, vw usually only uses them on performance or tdi models; none of which compete directly with a skyactive 3...certainly not in price anyway. (well maybe a jetta tdi)
but im pretty certain that if a base gold had the 6 speed dsg, not only would it be faster than it is now, it be more fleet than a base manual version and more fuel efficient than the m/t or current a/t
woochifer says:
04:11 PM, 01/31/12
@haunty
FWIW, Motor Trend timed the 0-60 at 7.8 sec, while Frugal Driver timed its run at 7.7 sec. Both of these tests were done with the auto tranny. Obviously, these times aren't conclusive because it wasn't a comparison test with competing models under similar conditions. Still, while they're not world beater times, they're not "sluggish" either.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1110_2012_mazda3_skyactiv_g_first_test/viewall.html
http://www.frugaldriver.com/reviews/mazda3-skyactiv-scores-40-mpg
sailorbeavis says:
08:09 PM, 01/31/12
My only positive experience with a small car using an automatic transmission has been in a mid-90s Nissan Sentra 1.6L.
The automatic four-speed was a slushbox, and like all slushboxes, it took its time thinking "Hm, should I downshift? Should I?" And then it finally did. But if you wanted the car to hold a gear it WOULD. It would not upshift unnecessarily unless you let off the throttle. I loved squealing around sharp corners in that car, and it wasn't even an SE-R.
I really want to like Mazdas beyond the Miata, but they haven't managed to get their designers and engineers on the same page since the original RX-7. The SkyActiv technology is impressive, though. Wait until version 2.0 and we'll get the power that drivers crave with the fuel economy the government wants.
blackdynamite1 says:
09:46 PM, 02/21/12
Autos are for the chronically lazy, shiftless, modern American male, dominated by the American female....
BD
34pete says:
05:29 AM, 03/ 7/12
@woochifer - I have limited faith in motor trend - ever since they named the Renault Alliance car of the year. My guess is they just used the MT time as the auto time since they figured its close enough. I have no faith in 'frugal driver.' Sorry. The CR times for similiar cars were all around 10 seconds. I'd be surprised if the Mazda made it into the 8's.
I'd add that to get acceptable 0-60s in an auto you have to break stand your starts - where as with a manual you just release the clutch at a decent RPM (depending on your cars grip/torque). So even decent 'numbers' never really capture the issue.
What's frustrating for guys who are bit older like me is that they low torque motors are being combined with autos because of the EPAs screwed up mileage testing. This is the most frustrating combination because no amount of 'gearing' can get around an engine that doesn't make alot of torque with an automatic transmission.
With torque there is no 'wrong gear' because your car can accelerate in the various gears. Mazda should pair the auto with 2.3 turbo as an option because the added torque could make all the difference. As it is I think I would likely prefer the lazy 2.5 to the 2.0 with an auto because of the extra 20 pounds of torque.