When you think of a performance aftermarket component you
typically think of a part that increases the vehicle’s power, but some
performance parts don’t. Instead they have a more critical purpose, increasing
the reliability of your performance engine and components. The CorkSport Oil Catch Can Kit (OCC Kit) is
just that type of component(s).
Why is an Oil Catch Can Kit
critical for your Mazda? Despite the
huge advancement Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) technology there are still
some downfalls. Compared to the more
conventional port injection fuel systems, GDI is much more prone to engine oil
fuel dilution. This is primarily due GDI
injecting directly into the cylinder; in low speed operation and cold starts
the fuel simply does not have enough time to fully atomize into a gas before
ignition. This results in some excess
fuel seeping past the piston rings into the oil along with any combustion
chamber blow by the pistons. This is
Here you can see the results of a
CorkSport OCC installed for ~3000 miles on a 2018 Mazda 6 2.5T. This engine only has 500 miles and has an
average commute of 15 miles & 20 minutes of mixed traffic and speeds.
Mazda’s OE design attempts to
resolve some of this with a valve cover breather that vents directly into the
turbocharger compressor inlet and a PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) valve
in the engine block that vents to the intake manifold.
Mazda’s setup depends on the fuel
and water vapor inside the crankcase being drawn into the intake manifold and
intake system to then be re-ingested by the engine. This has two major flaws:
The direct crankcase
ventilation via the PCV valve only works while cruising (no boost). Combustion gas blow by will occur most often
while in boost under high throttle application when the PCV valve is closed.
This forces the engine
to re-ingest dirty air that carries contaminants in the form of fuel and water
vapor along with carbon debris. These
containments then build up on the inside of the intake manifold, cylinder head
runners, and the intake valves slowly degrading performance over time.
The CorkSport OCC Kit provides you
with two major features:
Both the valve cover
vent and the PCV valve are drawn from the turbo inlet directly ahead of the
turbocharger compressor. Thus both the valve cover and PCV valve have constant
vacuum in all driving conditions, both cruising and high throttle application.
The oil catch can
itself acts as a “filter” for the vapor and debris that would normally be
directly ingested by the engine. The drawn crankcase vapor and debris is separates
and collects in the catch can for easy removal during normal oil changes.
As you saw above, there is a
significant amount of vapor and fine debris that is being filtered out of the
crankcase air that would have normally been ingested. As you continue down the path of modifying
and demanding more form your Mazda, the need for a OCC System only becomes more
and more critical.
Oil Catch Can Kit for 2016+ SkyActiv Turbo 2.5L October 28th, 2019Derrick Ambrose
Over the past few months, we’ve been teasing you with tidbits of info on the CorkSport Race Header for the Mazda 3 2.5L SkyActiv-G in the GEN3’s. Today’s blog is a big one as we go through the testing we performed on the header and share some results, including power! Before we get too deep though, be sure to get up to speed with a breakdown of the OEM header and our design goals for the CS header.
Addressing Underhood Heat
In our previous blog, some of you keen-eyed individuals were asking about underhood temperatures with the ram-horn style CorkSport header. Well, we went through testing to ensure everything will function as before when the new header is added. We’re happy to let you know that we saw very similar under the hood temperatures as the OEM header. As a double check, we applied some temperature sensitive stickers to some areas near to the CS header, as shown below. These stickers will fill in with color if a temperature listed is reached. While these ended up reaching higher temps than with the OEM header, no areas are at risk of damage or malfunction. Furthermore, both the CorkSport racecar and our beta tester have run the 2014+ Mazda 3 race header at the track with no issues with overheating, power losses, or engine bay damage!
How Does The Header Sound?
Before we get into the really good stuff, let’s go through a side effect of freeing up the headers on any engine: volume. We tested the Mazda 3 SkyActiv race header with multiple different setups: OEM cat back, CS 60mm cat back, CS 80mm cat back, and straight pipe. The race header on an OEM cat back is something that will not likely be used often (who runs a racecar with a stock exhaust?) but offers some nice growl and extra volume over the OEM exhaust. Both the CS 60mm and 80mm exhausts sound fantastic, with the 80mm being louder and having higher power potential than the 60mm. Even so, the 80mm is not uncomfortably loud and could be daily driven if full catalytic converter deletes are street legal in your area. We cannot recommend the straight pipe though. It is extremely loud and very uncomfortable. If you want a tease of sound with the 80mm cat back, check out our feature on our beta tester’s car in the video below.
The SkyActiv-G Race Header Adds Power
Alright, I’ve kept you waiting long enough, let’s talk power. The 4-2-1 design is very evident in our tests, as we did not see huge gains at peak WHP/WTQ. We did see very good gains throughout the midrange. From 2000RPM or lower all the way up to about 5300RPM we made 4-8WHP and 5-15WTQ. On our beta tester’s car with a good tune and supporting mods, this meant 194WHP and 226WTQ on 91 octane pump gas. The graph below shows a direct comparison of a 2016 Mazda 6 with a CS short ram intake, CS 60mm exhaust, and the same tune with and without the race header. Keep in mind, there is more optimization to be had with tuning with the header installed, and greater gains with an 80mm exhaust. The midrange gain may not seem like much but is extremely noticeable when driving the car.
That’s about it for our testing and validation blog. Next time you’ll hear about the CorkSport Race Header for the 2014+ Mazda 3, it will be released! Be sure to stay tuned to all the CS channels if you’re interested in being one of the first to pick one up.
-Barett @ CorkSport
P.S. We noticed a lot of you asking if this header will fit the auto transmission or 2.0L. The automatic transmission is 2-3” larger right where the lower section of the header sits, so for optimum pipe routing, we had to do away with automatic fitment. The 2.0L has a different bolt pattern and exhaust port spacing on the engine, so the 2.0L will not work with the CS race header either.
Please submit a product idea here if you would like to see automatic fitment, 2.0L fitment, or any other product for your car. The more submissions, the more likely we are to produce one so tell your car buddies!
The CorkSport Intercooler and Piping upgrade kits for the Mazda SkyActiv-G 2.5T are inching closer to release and it’s time to share more of the R&D that goes into making these kits perform the best. We went through extensive testing to determine which intercooler was the best fit and to validate that our changes were worthwhile. If you missed any of the previous blogs on these kits be sure to check them out: OEM IC & Piping Breakdown, CS Piping Upgrade Design, and CS Intercooler Design.
To start, we got some new toys from AEM Electronics. The main brain of the entire testing operation for the intercooler is an AEM CD-5L digital dash with logging. This dash allows us to tap into the vehicle’s ECU to see the same information that the OEM sensors are reading. To go along with the CD-5L, we got new AEM sensors that can be positioned to get the data that we need to see how our intercoolers perform.
We used the CD-5 to datalog our dyno runs so we can see what the car is doing while simultaneously seeing power levels from the dyno. To get the data we need, we tapped into the OEM intercooler and 3 intercooler core designs that we created to get pressure and temperature data before and after the intercooler core. In case you were wondering, drilling into a brand new intercooler is stressful!
Once we got everything wired up and the AEM properly set up, we were ready for testing to begin. There were multiple rounds of testing, each consisting of a string of dyno pulls back-to-back to test heat soak. We also performed standalone power runs with the intercooler setups. During testing, we used the full OEM intercooler and piping kit, and each of the CorkSport Intercoolers with the CorkSport piping. Of the three CorkSport intercoolers, we took the best setup and tested it with and without our piping kit.
Conditions were near identical for all tests, with the CS intercooler tests being ~10°F. warmer than the OEM tests (65° vs 55°).
Testing Intercooler Pressure Drop
Starting with pressure drop, the OEM intercooler performed better than we initially expected. The graph above shows the pressure drop across the core through a dyno run. In this case, the smaller the number the better. Starting at around 0.5psi at low RPM and peaking at around 2.4psi at higher RPM is pretty good for a core with fins that are fairly dense.
Shown in the graph above are the CorkSport intercooler pressure drop results. Core A has the densest fins, while Core C has the least dense fins. Looking at the graph above, you can see that Core A and B had a larger drop in pressure than OEM. Meanwhile, Core C had a smaller pressure drop than the OEM core. Having a smaller pressure drop than OEM means that your turbocharger can make less boost at the turbo yet still hit the boost target in the intake manifold. In other words, your turbo is working less to make the same power levels! Based on our results, option C appears to be the best option due to the low drop in pressure, but first, we will test temperature drop to be certain.
Testing Intercooler Temperature Drop
The graph above shows the change in temperature from the inlet to the outlet of the OEM intercooler during a dyno run. As you can see, there is a temperature delta (the amount of heat being removed from the boost air) of approximately 100-110°F through the majority of the dyno run. Not bad for the OEM intercooler as larger the better here, but we can do better.
The graph above shows the same temperature drop data for each of the three prototype cores. Please note, the difference at the beginning of the runs is a result of using the run with the best temperature change for each core. With this comparison, larger numbers mean that the intercooler is cooling the boosted air efficiently. As you can see, the very dense cores (A and B) with a high-pressure drop, cool better. However, there are diminishing returns that come when you make a core denser. Through the meat of the dyno run, Core C has approximately 140-150°F of temperature drop, Core A has 150-180°F of temperature drop, and Core B has 140-170°F of temperature drop. This data shows that Core C cools almost as well as A and B despite having a drastically lower pressure drop. Core C is definitely our winner, but we have one last thing to test: heat soak.
Testing Intercooler Heat Soak
The graph above shows the OEM intercooler tested for heat soak by being run on a dyno in back to back runs. The graph is showing the intercooler inlet and outlet temperatures, so the boost temperature before the intercooler and the boost temperature after the intercooler that your engine sees. Over the runs, the inlet temp increases as the engine and turbo get hot. The OEM core does a pretty good job at preventing the outlet from increasing over the pulls (heat soak), but the CorkSport core can do better.
The graph above shows the results of the same test that was performed with the CorkSport prototype Core C. The inlet temp follows a similar path of heating up drastically as the run’s progress, but the improved cooling efficiency is highlighted when you look at the outlet temps. The CorkSport intercooler core cools better and also shows less heat soak, leaving you with 20+ degree cooler temps after the same tests.During testing of the CorkSport core, ambient temps were slightly higher than the OEM test, having been done on a relatively cool day in the mid to upper 50s. If the tests had been performed at 100% identical ambient temps or overall higher ambient temps, the results would be further skewed in the CorkSport kit’s favor!
Testing Intercooler Power
Last, but certainly not least, is power. We tested back to back with the OEM setup, CS FMIC only, and then the CS FMIC with the full piping kit. With the CorkSport FMIC alone, we picked up 3WHP at peak but more importantly, 3-9WHP and 3-12WTQ from 2250-4250RPM. Seen in the graph below.
With the CS intercooler and piping Kit, we picked up around 6WHP at peak compared to full OEM but even more WHP and WTQ through the midrange. For clarity, the graph below is the full CS setup vs. full OEM setup; without tuning!
While these gains are decent, the intercooler and piping kit will truly shine once we are able to tune the car for different boost and load targets. In addition, we checked for changes to spool time and throttle response with the piping kit but only noticed marginal gains as we are limited by the current tune on the car. Based on our testing though, it is clear that we are increasing the efficiency of the turbocharging and the intercooling system, which future proofs your ride for further mods and tuning down the road.
Let us know if you have any questions regarding our testing, we can’t wait for you all to get these parts. Look for the CorkSport Intercooler Upgrade and CS Piping Kit coming soon, along with more fun parts for the 2.5T!
SkyActiv-G 2.5T Intercooler & Piping Testing May 23rd, 2019CorkSport
A few months ago we broke down the complicated design of the exhaust manifold found on the 2014-2018 Mazda 3 & 6 2.5L SkyActiv. Mazda put extensive R&D into the design and packaging of the OEM header to optimize the exhaust gas pulses and overlap.
In this blog we are going to explain some of the design features in the CorkSport 4-2-1 header and why those features are important.
Below is a diagram showing the primary, secondary and collector routing of the OE header.
When designing a performance header we have to ask ourselves, “what is the goal with this performance part?” and then fulfill that goal. With the performance header for the 2.5L SkyActiv our goal was to increase mid-range torque, retain good fitment and user installation, and improve the sound output of the exhaust system.
Immediately you’ll notice a significant difference in the design of the OEM header and the CorkSport Header. There are three major differences:
Primary, secondary, and collector diameters have been increased to promote better exhaust gas flow.
Primary and secondary runner lengths have been increased to optimize power/torque lower in the RPM range.
The design is two-piece to drastically improve the installation process.
The primary runners (these are the runners that mate directly to the engine) have been increased in diameter from 1.55” to 1.75” and the secondary runners (these are the runners that combine only two cylinders before the collector) have been increased in diameter from 1.87” to 2.00”. Both of these changes improve peak flow per cylinder throughout the RPM range. Lastly, the collector has been increased from 2.00” to 3.00” to be paired with the CorkSport 60.5mm or 80mm Cat-Back Exhaust Systems.
Here’s where things got a bit tricky. Increasing the length of the primary and secondary runners forced us to be a bit creative in routing all the piping. In order to achieve the primary runner length we wanted, we had to route the piping upward first (as you can see below) then back down between the engine and firewall. The results were better than we expected with a “Medusa” style header peeking out of the engine bay and the lengths we wanted.
It makes us grin every time we pop the hood open, we hope you love it as much as we do.
However, the complicated CorkSport design did create a new problem. Installation! We always try to create a performance part that can be installed by the average enthusiast in their garage and this was no exception. In a one-piece design, the header was nearly impossible to install. We went to the drawing board and realized that separating the upper and lower halves of the header was the best option.
We considered a conventional flange, gasket and hardware setup, but realized it to was far too complex in the close quarters behind the engine. We then moved to a v-band connection that proved to be the best setup for installation, weight, and sealing ability.
That wraps up the design, next we’ll breakdown the testing and results! Let us know if you have any questions or thoughts down below.
-Barett @ CorkSport
The Design – 2.5L SkyActiv-G Exhaust Header April 22nd, 2019CorkSport
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
Let’s Get Chilly: CorkSport Intercooler for SkyActiv 2.5T March 14th, 2019CorkSport
We are working on our blog, We will get you the best Mazda content back up shortly