Mazda 6 Turbo Lowering Springs Release!

2018+ Mazda 6 Lowering Springs

We at CorkSport are happy to introduce the Sport Lowering Springs for 2018+ Mazda 6 equipped with the 2.5L turbocharged engine. In our last post, we talked about the height, handling, and quality of our new springs. If you haven’t seen it, check it out HERE. Today we’ll cover how we tested the ride quality and go a step further to talk about damping and natural frequency. I’m going to warn you now; this gets a little bit complicated, but we’re happy to answer any questions you may have.

Spring Damping

Let’s start with a basic example–your car hits a bump which compresses the spring. It “springs” back to its normal length. In a perfect world with no friction or damping, the springs in your suspension would keep bouncing up and down forever, this is called oscillation. Add back in dampening and friction, and the spring will settle out to its normal length pretty quickly. How different strengths of damping affect the “oscillation” can be seen in the graph below.

Spring damping graph
Spring damping example.

The car has hit the bump at the bottom left of the graph. As time goes by, you can see the spring expand and compress and so on. The Greek letter is not important but what is important is the numbers. When it is 0 (black line) the spring compresses and expands over and over to the same height. As the number increases, you can see that the spring returns to its normal length faster until it gets too large and overpowers the spring (dark blue line). For a car, the 0.4 to 1 range is ideal as there is minimal “bouncing” without having too high of damping.

What does all this mean though? Let’s say from the factory the car is in the 0.7 range (orange line). If we went to a drastically stiffer spring, but kept the OEM dampers, we may end up in the 0.2 range (light blue line), which would be uncomfortable due to all the bouncing every time you hit a bump. The CorkSport front and rear spring rates chosen are small enough of a change to fit well with the OEM damping, ensuring no bouncing.

Stock 2018 Mazda 6 and CorkSport Modified Mazda 6
Stock height vs. CorkSport Springs

Natural Frequency Analysis

To go along with this, we did some natural frequency analysis. Natural frequency simplified is how quickly the suspension responds to a bump. Higher the natural frequency, the harsher the ride in a car is. Most “regular” production cars sit in a 1.0-1.6 Hertz (Hz) range for a comfortable ride. Sports cars are usually in the 1.6-2.3Hz range. Full race cars are usually 2.3-3.0 or even higher. An average person will start thinking a ride is stiff/harsh at around 2.0-2.2Hz. Using a special app that ties into the accelerometers of a cell phone we can approximately measure the frequency of a specific suspension setup. With stock suspension on the Mazda 6 2.5T, this yielded ~1.4Hz front and ~1.7Hz rear.

With a stiffer spring, these frequencies will increase, but we wanted to be sure to only increase them slightly, to not severely affect comfort. We went through a few different combinations to get our ideal result. Our final setup ended up at ~1.5Hz front and ~1.85Hz rear. This is enough to notice the suspension feels “sportier” without riding harsh.

2018+ Mazda 6 Roller Shot

There is one other big thing to highlight with frequency. Notice that both the OEM and CorkSport springs have a higher rear natural frequency than front. If your natural frequency front to back is close to equal, the car has a tendency to “pitch” front to back over bumps. Since your rear tires hit the bump slightly later than the fronts, to have a comfortable ride the rear suspension has to “catch up” to the fronts to prevent this pitching back and forth. If a frequency is too much higher in the rear, it can be too fast for the fronts and cause the same pitching issue.

Natural frequency was always on our minds when designing the CS springs and we tested a bunch of different combinations to determine the optimum balance of ride and handling.


That about does it for the Mazda 6 2.5T Sport Lowering Springs. Be sure to let us know if you have any questions-suspension is hard, even for us! Lastly, be sure to share your MZ6T with us by using #CorkSport.

-Daniel @ CorkSport

Shop Now

CorkSport CST6

Testing & Validation of the CorkSport CST6

As we get closer and closer to announcing the launch of the new CorkSport Turbo Line-Up we want to share the testing and validation we put our turbos through.  You may not realize it, but we’ve already shared a lot about the CST6 without really saying so, check out Barett’s Built Gen1 Here.  

So we’ve talked a bit about the design intent behind the CST6; defining the wheel sizes, wheel size ratio, and the ball bearing CHRA.   If you’ve seen the teaser listing then you’ve already seen the 633 whp dyno graph, so we’ll look at the data to support it!

The First Look at the CST6 Performance

CorkSport CST6 dyno at 28psi
CST6 running at 28PSI

First let’s look at the CST6 at a more moderate boost pressure.  Above are the results of back-to-back testing comparing the XS-Power V3 Exhaust Manifold and the upcoming CorkSport Cast Exhaust Manifold.  All dyno runs were performed with the same 28 psi peak pressure tune.

So the exhaust manifold testing is exciting, but it’s not what we’re here to discuss.   What I want you to know is that the CST6 is fully capable of providing mid-500 whp power at 28 psi.   While we have and will continue to push the CST6 to its max ability, the 27-30 psi range has proven to be a sweet and efficient spot for the CST6.

Testing the Limits on the CST6

CorkSport CST6 Dyno Graph running 34psi
CST6 running at 34PSI

Searching for the limits with the current fuel system we can easily push past the 600 whp mark plus some.   The efficiency of the CST6 at this power level is still very strong and the turbo continues to pull through the RPM range.   What really makes the CST6 shine is the power under the curve. This is a BIG turbo and will respond like one, but the loss of early spool is easily compensated for with the abundant power curve and power that carries past 7500 rpm.  

It’s important to note that testing for the CST6 is not finished because we are currently limited by the fuel system on the vehicle.   The current fuel system is OE DI injectors paired with a boost based methanol system flowing 40 gph peak. In the near future, we will continue finding the limits of the CST6 with a true port injection system and Split-Second controller flowing E85.   This will give us headroom for 8000+ rpm and boost levels past 34 psi (let’s see what 40 psi give us!).

Looking at the CST6 Data Log

CorkSport CST6 Data Log
MAF Voltage and Actual AFR of the CST6

This is a datalog form the 633 whp dyno run and was recorded on the chassis dyno.   Because of that, it is not a perfect example of street driving… let me explain why. The dyno dynamics chassis CorkSport uses can control load and thus the rate at which the engine can rev through the RPM range.   In order for us to dyno a vehicle at this power level safely, we need to find the right ramp rate for low RPM and high RPM. The biggest factor this affects is the spool RPM of the turbo.

On the graph I marked ~200 rpm shifted to the left for the boost curve.   On the street, the CST6 spools about 200 rpm sooner due to the higher load on the street vs the dyno.   This puts the CST6 @ 20 psi around 3800-3900 rpm.

Also shown on the graph are MAF voltage and actual AFR.   Both of these are important because they provide real data about how the vehicle is being tuned.

Target AFR is set for 11.76 which is neither rich nor aggressive for this setup.  The slight up and down of the AFR curve from 3500-4000 rpm is due to the very high amount of auxiliary methanol starting to spray along with the DI injectors.

Looking at MAF voltage you can see us get well past 4.50v.  Actually, we are consistently seeing MAF Voltage around 4.65-4.70v using the CorkSport 3.5” Intake which has a true ID of 3.50”.  This is just further validation that the CST6 is flowing enough air to support 600+ whp.

There’s more to come from the new CorkSport turbo lineup so stay tuned for more info on the CST5, CST6, and EWG housings.

-Barett @ CorkSport

Let’s Get Chilly: CorkSport Intercooler for SkyActiv 2.5T

It’s time to break down our design for the CorkSport Performance Intercooler Upgrade for the Mazda 6 2.5T. We have covered both the OEM intercooler and piping, and our design plan for the upcoming Sky-T intercooler piping upgrade in previous blogs, but today’s focus is the intercooler itself. Intercoolers are a delicate balancing act between size, cooling efficiency, and pressure drop so naturally things can get a little complicated. Buckle up and stay with us, and be sure to drop any questions you may have down below.

Taking a look at the stock intercooler mounted on the Mazda 6 (shown above) shows us quickly where our size constraints lie. With the large crash bar, we cannot go too much larger in height without trimming the crash bar, bumper, or both. However, there is a ton of room for added thickness and better end-tank design that can really help increase the width of the intercooler. The stock intercooler core is 24.5” wide, 5.5” tall, and 2.625” thick. Our plan is to fit a 27” wide, 6” tall, and 3.5” core without any trimming. This sizing combined with a low-pressure drop will be good for 400WHP with no issues! Because the Mazda 6 comes with just around 200WHP from the factory, this sized core provides plenty of room for upgrading down the road without causing excessive boost lag that can occur if an intercooler is simply too big. Check out a prototype CorkSport intercooler mounted on the car below.

Now that size is taken care of, let’s move on to cooling efficiency and pressure drop of the CorkSport intercooler for the SkyActiv 2.5T. These are tied closely together as getting extremely high cooling efficiency usually means high pressure drop and vice versa. Just so we’re on the same page, cooling efficiency is how well the intercooler cools off the pressurized air that passes through it. So a highly efficient intercooler will be able to bring the boost temperatures down similar to the ambient air temperature. Pressure drop is exactly what it sounds like, a loss in pressure from the inlet to the outlet of the intercooler which can be caused by a number of things: poor end-tank design, too many intercooler fins, or simply poor flow distribution in the intercooler. Too large of a pressure drop means lower boost pressures reaching your engine and/or your turbocharger working harder to achieve the same boost levels.

Pressure drop and cooling efficiency are influenced primarily by two things: fin density and end-tank design. Fin density is basically how many fins the boosted air must pass over when traversing the intercooler. More fins = better cooling efficiency, but also more pressure drop. To choose the best core for the SkyActiv 2.5T we plan to use multiple different fin densities and test each for power, cooling efficiency, and pressure drop. While we can get pretty close based on our work from the CS Mazdaspeed Intercoolers, it’s always best to test and identify the best one for each platform. With this extensive testing, we can reach our goal of improved cooling efficiency, lower pressure drop, more power, and no CELs.

End-tank design is critical as it determines how the air reaches the core of the intercooler. Sharp bends, poor air distribution, and small inlet/outlet size all adversely affect the performance of the intercooler. To fit the core size we want, we had to do away with the plastic inlet and outlet pipes of the stock intercooler. This was advantageous as it gave us more room to have a smooth flowing end-tank that distributes air well to all the runners and does away with the sharp corners present in the OEM end-tanks. In addition, we were able to increase the inlet and outlet size of the intercooler to 2.5”. This is a fairly standard size that has shown to work well for the Mazdaspeeds with stock power and without choking flow way up to Barett’s 600+ WHP.

Those of you with a keen eye have realized that the connection between the CorkSport front mount intercooler (FMIC) and the OEM Intercooler is not the same. As shown in the CAD rendering above, each intercooler kit will come with the silicone and custom adapters that are needed to work with the OEM piping. If you decide to upgrade to the CS intercooler piping kit, later on, the CorkSport Intercooler for SkyActiv 2.5T will not need to be removed, and you will only need to change some silicone parts.

We will have more info on this kit coming soon, with the next blog covering our testing of the different core designs using a few new toys from AEM Electronics. Be sure to check out the product listing for more info, and to be notified when the intercooler is available. Last but not least, CX-9 Turbo and CX-5 Turbo owners, we are 99% sure this kit will also work on your rides but we plan on validating fitment before release!

-Daniel @ CorkSport

CST5 Spools!! Testing and Validation

We’re back on the new CorkSport turbocharger lineup again with today’s blog, this time focusing on the testing & validation of the “medium big” turbo, the CST5. Just in case you missed it, the CST4 (formerly known as the CorkSport 18G) is getting some company to go along with its new swanky name. Check out the full lineup here and the design behind the CST5 here. Now that you’ve read all that, let’s get into what you’re really here for, testing & dyno numbers.

We started with the internal wastegate option, to validate the CST5 for drop-in fitment. Since we’ve had great experience with the drop-in CST4, we knew how to design a turbo around the tight confines of the Mazdaspeed engine bay. The CST5 fit great in the OEM location with just a few minor revisions for proper fitment. It looks pretty good in there too if we do say so ourselves!

Next the car got put on the dyno for tuning and to push the new CST5 to its limits. With a little help from our friend Will at PD Tuning, the CST5 was soon putting down some impressive numbers. We started off with a “calm” boost level of ~25psi. This netted us 450WHP and spool time that surprised us, achieving 20psi by 3500-3600RPM. Turning up the boost and pushing the turbo to its limits, we achieved 519WHP at ~30-31psi on Barett’s built GEN1 MS3. Check out the dyno graph below.

Taking the car out on the street surprised us further at just how early the car was building boost for this size of turbo. Road logs showed that we were making 20psi slightly sooner than on the dyno (3400-3500RPM) but even more surprisingly the CST5 was making 30psi by 3700-3800RPM! Obviously this is an aggressive tune that would most likely kill a stock block, but, the CST5 can be tuned to be stock block friendly and still make good power.

Then came the testing on the EWG variant of the CST5. We had developed fitment for the CST6 which meant the CST5 had no issues upon install on both MS3 and MS6. Next was a quick retune and some power runs. The larger swallowing capacity of the EWG housing meant some extra power at peak, yet spool was nearly unchanged. We made 525WHP at the same ~30-31psi.

Comparing the IWG and EWG turbine housings you can see a small variation in the graphs.  This variation is mainly due to the change from internally waste-gated and externally waste-gated.  The EWG setup provides more precise boost control through the RPM range. The EWG setup allows us to better tune the “torque spike” around 4200rpm vs the IWG setup.  For peak power the IWG and EWG housings are within the margin of error which makes since because they are both 0.82 A/R housings.

Further supporting the IWG and EWG setups, both options allow you to tune the spring pressure so you can better setup your CST5 and Speed for the fuel and boost levels you want and of course the most noticeable difference is what you hear. What’s an EWG without a screamer pipe!  

Wrapping up testing showed exactly what we were hoping for with the CST5: a great middle ground between the existing CST4 and the upcoming CST6 that can be used on both high powered stock block and fully built cars. Our testing continues as this blog is written as the CST5 is being beta tested by a close friend of CS with a freshly built Dankai 2.

There’s more to come from the new CorkSport turbo lineup so stay tuned for more info on the CST5, CST6, and EWG housings.

-Daniel @ CorkSport

CST6 – The CorkSport Stock Flange Record Turbo

A few weeks ago we discussed some of the design intent behind the CST5 turbocharger for the Mazdaspeed platform.  Today, we want to follow up with the CST6. The CST5 and the CST6 both were a result of CorkSport’s desire to develop a new stock flange turbocharger that goes beyond the power limits of our FANTASTIC  CST4 Turbo.  

During development of a higher power stock flange performance turbo we found that we were asking too much of the CST4 Design.  The result of our efforts are the CST5 Turbo which you can see here and the CST6 Turbo which we are about to dig into.  

In this blog we’ll dig into the wheel sizing, the CHRA, and some of the challenges we faced in the development and testing.  

The compressor wheel utilized on the CST6 the well-known and trusted GEN1 GTX76.  The GTX76 compressor is rated for 64 lb/min and is capable of boost pressures that will require a 4bar MAP sensor upgrade.  Like the CST5, the compressor housing is a 4inch inlet with anti-surge porting.

Unlike the CST4 and CST5, the CST6 uses a completely different CHRA and bearing system, and for good reason.  As the turbocharger wheel sizes increase so do the weight and potential boost pressure. This results in higher loads on the wheels, turbine shaft, and bearing system. To increase durability and performance of the CST6, we opted to move from a conventional journal bearing design for a more modern and robust ball bearing design.  

The ball bearing system improves durability and stability for high horsepower/high boost operation along with improved spool and transient response.  Changing the CHRA did pose some new challenges however. Ease of installation has always been a key feature with CorkSport products and that’s not lost with the CST6.  The CHRA has been modified to support use of the OE oil drain line and all necessary oil feed components and coolant components are included for seamless installation.

Like the CST5 Turbo, we’ve put focus on the wheel size ratio and have validated it’s performance. The CST6 Performance Turbo uses the Gen1 GTX76 compressor wheel paired with the Garrett GT35 turbine wheel…aka GTX3576r.  This wheel combination provides us with a ratio of 1.12 which falls well within the rule of thumb discussed the in the past CST5 blog.

In testing, we found that increasing the size of the turbine wheel from a GT30 to a GT35 with the same GTX76 compressor wheel resulted in more top-end power and no penalty in spool time.  This combo also provided a good power delta from the CST5 to better provide an optimal power option for the community. Since then the CST6 has proven power at 600+whp at ~34-35psi and testing will continue past 40psi.  

The initial testing of the CST6 started with an internally wastegated turbine housing as that was the original goal with the CST5 and CST6.  However, it quick became obvious that a turbocharger of this size and power potential could not be safely controlled with an internal wastegate.  The amount the wastegate port and “exhaust” or flow was not nearly adequate for proper boost control.

Boost would creep to nearly 26psi with no signs of tapering off.  Nevertheless we continue testing knowing that auxiliary fueling was necessary.  Once the CST6 power and durability was validated we moved to design a turbine housing that could provide the necessary boost control and power potential.

Above is the removed CST6 internally waste-gated housing.  In our testing we pushed the turbo to nearly 600whp with 40gph of methanol auxiliary fueling.  This amount of heat combined with a turbine housing that was literally being pushed to its limits resulted in a great learning experience.  As you can see, the turbine housing was cracking! The GT35 turbine wheel and power was just too much.

From this discovery and analysis we developed the EWG turbine housing with the CST6 in mind.  The scroll size was increased, wall thickness increased in critical areas and the 44mm EWG port added.  

With the use of the EWG turbine housing, boost control is now spot on and can easily controlled from spring pressure to an excess of 35+psi.  Stick around as we continue to push the limits of the CST6 as we continue testing and validation of the CorkSport V2 Intake Manifold w/Port Injection.  

Thanks for tuning in with CorkSport Mazda Performance.

-Barett @ CS