Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

Mazda3

1…6667697172…180

Comments

  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    Thanks.

    We have saw these dyno before. It's a theoretical engine output at the crank from Mazda. If one could use the measured dyno at the wheels, the simulation will be even more accurate.

    Usually dyno at wheels is around 20/25% lower than dyno at crank (MT/AT respectively). So I think the Cartest2000 numbers from your simulations are somewhat optimistic (probably by 0.8-1.0 second on 0-60mph). But the performance relationship among different Mazda3 versions is there.

    Based on your results, here is my bet for the more "realistic" 0-60 times

    2.0-AT: 10.3 s
    2.0-MT: 9.0 s
    2.3-AT: 9.5 s
    2.3-MT: 8.3 s

    This is in fact pretty similar to what we have discussed a week ago.
  • Options
    knf2020knf2020 Member Posts: 8
    CARTEST2000 is a 1/4 mile drag simulator. The first 1 foot does not count. The 1/4 mile timer does not start till after the first 1 foot. Consequently that first one foot takes about .4 to .5 seconds on cars of this performance level. So add that to my 0-60mph times to get a more accurate time if you want to include the time to 60 mph from a dead stop as opposed to after the first 1 foot.

    Ken
  • Options
    callmedrfillcallmedrfill Member Posts: 729
    That isn't much better than a Corolla or Neon (8.2 0-60 in C&D) can muster with far less pop. For $17-18k well equipped, $21k loaded, I want more!

      drfill
  • Options
    combustible1combustible1 Member Posts: 264
    anybody know how these numbers compare to the MZ6i with the same 2.3l engine?

    I would hope better as the 6i MT & AT weight 3042 & 3091lb., respectively. (and the 3s MT & AT weighing in at roughly 2700 & 2760lb., respectively.)
  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    anybody know how these numbers compare to the MZ6i with the same 2.3l engine?

    European Mazda official 0-62mph spec (all MT):
    - Mz6 2.3l (164 hp) 8.9 sec
    - Mz6 2.0l (140 hp) 9.7 sec
    - Mz3 2.0l (148 hp) 9.0 sec
  • Options
    baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    "anybody know how these numbers compare to the MZ6i with the same 2.3l engine?"

    I can't find numbers on the 6i but Edmunds clocked the 6s AT at 8.0 seconds to 60 mph. The MT V6 is somewhere in the mid 7's if I recall.

    Going from there I'd venture to guess that a 6i MT will hit 60 in somewhere around 9 seconds. High 8's at best. So it seems the 3 will be a bit faster. Which is a good thing.

    *Edit*
    See above. Looks like Bruno beat me to it.
  • Options
    combustible1combustible1 Member Posts: 264
    I figured it was about time I added something useful to this forum.. (I hope this hasn't been posted already):

     http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/- 38029
  • Options
    newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "Going from there I'd venture to guess that a 6i MT will hit 60 in somewhere around 9 seconds. High 8's at best. So it seems the 3 will be a bit faster. Which is a good thing."

    The only instrumented test of the Mazda6i manual that I have seen (and I read just about everything) is from Car and Driver. They tested a 6i manual with the sport package. It did 0-60 in 7.9 seconds, so it seems that your guess is quite a bit off.
  • Options
    combustible1combustible1 Member Posts: 264
    so the question continues..
  • Options
    lavaorange3lavaorange3 Member Posts: 128
    1. There's more to Mazda than just speed. My mom bought a G-35 coupe and while it's fast, almost everything else about the car is half-baked...it's not an integrated whole.

    2. As my wife likes to say, speed is over-rated.

    3. Maybe a Neon is as fast or faster, but it also sounds like you've got a blender filled with rocks under the hood.
  • Options
    baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    newcar,
    That makes no sense at all! The 6s AT only gets to 60 in 8 seconds flat according to Edmunds, and the MT version isn't much faster.

    So are you trying to tell us that the 6i MT is only a few tenths of a second slower than the 6s which has 60 more horses and nearly 60 more lb-ft of torque?

    I'm not seeing it. That had to be a typo in C&D. The sport package adds nothing but weight and slightly better handling via the tires so it couldn't be a factor.

    Is there a link to this story?
  • Options
    baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    "There's more to Mazda than just speed."

    I agree with that. The terrain around here does not permit high speed driving whatsoever so I'm going for handling this time. ;)
  • Options
    stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,558
    Car and Driver often has "optomistic" times for some cars. Part of it is where and how they test (you would cringe if someone drove your car that way), and there is always the possibility of a "ringer". The best way to use their numbers (actually and magazines) is to compare cars tested at the same time.

    Mid 8's for a 3 doesn't sound too bad. Frankly, not too many years ago the numbers posted above would have been fantastic for a sports sedan, so I don't think you are in danger of getting run over driving a 3.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    My guess is they use the "cheat" method, i.e., running the engine to the red line before clutch dump. For the AT, they probably use brake-torque launch. This method might give impressive numbers, but is not appropriate to judge car performances. Any comment Todd?

    For my part, I like to use Mazda official method/number as benchmark. I don't care much about 0-60mph time. The torque curve and gear ratios give me a more complete picture about the car performance than just one number.
  • Options
    combustible1combustible1 Member Posts: 264
    I"m not a big numbers guy, worried about 0-60 times. However, given it's weight advantage, I would be perturbed if the 3 wasn't better than the 6i though.
  • Options
    lavaorange3lavaorange3 Member Posts: 128
    Short story. When I was much younger the parents of a friend gave him a Mustang GTA, I believe a '67, with a 390ci. It had 15,000 miles on it. All he ever did with it was floor it every chance he got. Turns out he blew it up when it was just short of 20,000 miles. He couldn't understand why. So his parents gave him a Jag XK-E, but that's another story. Bruno's right...it boils down to how it drives, not always how fast it is.
  • Options
    newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "That makes no sense at all! The 6s AT only gets to 60 in 8 seconds flat according to Edmunds, and the MT version isn't much faster.
    So are you trying to tell us that the 6i MT is only a few tenths of a second slower than the 6s which has 60 more horses and nearly 60 more lb-ft of torque?"

    I am not telling you that, Car and Driver is. You can't compare Edmunds' numbers to Car and Driver's numbers. Car and Driver got the 6s to perform a lot better than Edmunds did. Since this is the only test I've seen for the 6i manual, that's what I'm going by. I'll trust Car and Driver's instrumented testing before I'll trust anyone's guess.

    "My guess is they use the "cheat" method, i.e., running the engine to the red line before clutch dump. For the AT, they probably use brake-torque launch. This method might give impressive numbers, but is not appropriate to judge car performances. Any comment Todd?"

    Hmmm....am I the Car and Driver spokesperson now? They do whatever it takes to get the best time. If the car is AWD, then yes, it might mean a redline clutch dump. How should we judge car performances? I guess Car and Driver is out. Who should we trust?
  • Options
    baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    "I"m not a big numbers guy, worried about 0-60 times. However, given it's weight advantage, I would be perturbed if the 3 wasn't better than the 6i though."

    That's what I'm getting at. If the 6i offers a little more performance it might be a better deal for me right now. I may not get the fancy gauges or classy center stack but I'll get a little more room all around.

    I'm not buying until March or thereafter so I'll just have to wait and see what the incentive fairies bring. :)
  • Options
    baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    C&D tested the 6s MT at about 6.8 seconds while MT got it to go under 6.7 seconds. Trust who you want.

    Sorry if my message came off offensive. I'm not blaming you. I was really just looking for some proof from C&D.
  • Options
    md_rocksmd_rocks Member Posts: 41
    not too long ago that detailed some of their testing procedures. They use high-rpm (not redline I don't think unless the car calls for it) for manuals and brake torque for automatics.

    It's simply a way to get the best times possible out of a vehicle. No way in hell I'd let those guys touch my car unless I was Ted Turner's illegitimate son or something. Most cars these days sell performance potential above all else. C&D just shows prospective owners what that potential is.
  • Options
    odysseus3odysseus3 Member Posts: 19
    While I agree that 0-60 times are just one piece of the puzzle, they are an important piece. Regardless of what you say now, no one likes to be dusted by someone in a 76 Parisienne. That said, if the 3 (2.3L MT) was somewhere in the low 8s or high sevens, most people would probably be more than happy.

    Mazda has always confused me, because they make very competitive cars in terms of handling and build quality, but they are typically under powered.

    I'm almost glad that official numbers haven't been posted, because now I won't have a biased butt dyno when I test drive.
  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    Todd: Who should we trust?

    Mazda!

    No, I don't expect you to be C&D spokesperson, I just ask if you know more detail about the method they were using to measure 0-60 (may be they mention somewhere in the mag?)
  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    md_rocks Nov 21, 2003 5:25pm

    OK, Thanks! that confirms my hypothesis on why C&D numbers are so good (or - why other numbers are so bad - depending on whom you trust .-) Everything have a logical explanation.
  • Options
    akumazakumaz Member Posts: 65
    I was driving by a Mazda dealership in the Chicago suburbs, and lo and behold, there was a silver Mazda3s (with sport package) sitting in front of the dealership. Unfortunately I couldn't stop at the time (on my way to a meeting), so when I came back, it was gone. It turned out that it was a regional car being shown around the Chicago area.

    Had I skipped my meeting, I could have taken a look inside at the interior and sit in it -_- From what I gathered from a salesman, the 3's are already in port at Tacoma, WA, and that my dealer (Villa Park) will have one to test drive next week. He also said that they were getting sedans first, with the 5-doors to follow in a month. The salespeople had the chance to drive the car (automatic), and he gushed at how much better it was than the outgoing Protege- saying that people will enjoy driving the car for pleasure- and salivating at trying it with a stick.

    I can't wait to try one out next week. I'm still unsure of whether to get a 3s or 6i, but after following the 3 here for months, I'm eager to give it a spin.
  • Options
    newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    The C&D 0-60 time for the Mazda6i was from a Car and Driver sedan comparison test. I have the mag somewhere, but I'm not going to dig it up. You can go to your local library and see for yourself if you don't believe me. The online version doesn't have the test numbers. The Accord came in first BTW.

    I just don't see how the Mazda6i manual's 7.9 second 0-60 run is so off the wall for some of you folks. The 4 cyl 5sp manual Accord in the same test did it in 7.5 seconds. I'll bet ya money that Car and Driver does better than 7.9 for the manual Mazda3s.

    As far Car and Driver beating on the cars to get the numbers, GREAT! That means I know what the cars are capable of. That's why I have a subscription to them and not Consumer Reports. I really don't care about the publications that [non-permissible content removed]-foot the cars through tests, like Edmunds and Consumer Reports. I want to know what it'll do.
  • Options
    lmp180psulmp180psu Member Posts: 399
    newcar31 Nov 21, 2003 6:17pm

    "As far Car and Driver beating on the cars to get the numbers, GREAT! That means I know what the cars are capable of. That's why I have a subscription to them and not Consumer Reports. I really don't care about the publications that [non-permissible content removed]-foot the cars through tests, like Edmunds and Consumer Reports. I want to know what it'll do."

    I would like to know "what a car can do", but almost no one actually does/can drive this way on public roads. I want to know how the car will perform WITHOUT brake torque (in the case of the AT), because I am not going to be sitting at a traffic light revving the engine with my foot on the brake. I want to know how smooth, quick the car will accelerate form a normal stop. I like C&D because they do emphasize fun/handling etc. in their reviews/POV, but I also see the merit of a magazine/testing like Consumer Reports. More people drive more like CR then C&D ( at least I would hope so), so in terms of 0-60 numbers, CR makes more sense IMO.
  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    As far Car and Driver beating on the cars to get the numbers, GREAT!

    Sure! But our dislike for C&D method is this: with a torque dump, the engine will run 90% around 6000 rpm during the test, whereas with the normal method, the engine with run more evenly across the entire rev range. The later method is more representative about what the engine is capable of in the real life. Whereas for the C&D method can be viewed as some sort of max-hp/weight ratio, which IMHO, not so informative. It's not so surprising that the Accord came first: Honda engines always deliver power at very high rpm.

    Now, for someone who are interested mostly in track racing, he/she might have different preference.
  • Options
    newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    When you are testing 0-60 and 1/4 mile, why WOULDN'T you want the engine in it's power band? The point of the test is to see how quick you can do those things. The new Honda 4cyl in the Accord isn't a peaky engine. It has good torque all over the RPM range.

    "The later method is more representative about what the engine is capable of in the real life."

    What method is this?
  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    Todd, Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant is the method that launch the car without reving the engine before hand. I suppose this is used by CR or Edmunds or Mazda for 0-60.

    When you are testing 0-60 and 1/4 mile, why WOULDN'T you want the engine in it's power band?

    Because I don't really need a test that is more or less a straight forward translation of the max-power of the engine. What I want to know is a number that tell me how my car will perform during passing a long truck on the one lane farmer road, how easy I can make lane merging on the Hwy, etc...
  • Options
    newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "Todd, Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant is the method that launch the car without reving the engine before hand."

    No such method. In order to "launch" some cars, you need to do what you need to do and most of the time, it requires a little revving and a little dumping of the clutch. I don't know what Edmunds or Consumer Reports does, all I know is that their times are almost always slower than what Motor Trend and Car and Driver gets. Maybe they don't "launch" the cars, or maybe they only push the gas pedal down halfway, maybe they shift halfway to redline, maybe all of the above? I dunno, I don't care.

    "Because I don't really need a test that is more or less a straight forward translation of the max-power of the engine."

    Sounds like you don't need acceleration tests, which is what 0-60 and 1/4 mile measurements are.
  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    Sounds like you don't need acceleration tests, which is what 0-60 and 1/4 mile measurements are.

    That is correct, especially when using C&D method. I have told here many time that I don't value much pure-hp and 0-60 numbers.
  • Options
    baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    "You can go to your local library and see for yourself if you don't believe me. The online version doesn't have the test numbers."

    Thanks but I'll pass. I was hoping they put it online for all of us to see. I'm in no way doubting you read it. I'm just finding it hard to believe. On the other hand, MT did a low seven run of the ZX2 a little after I bought it. The best I could do, albeit with rudimentary equipment, was right around 8 seconds.

    I like to see what the mags say too which is why I will only read MT and C&D. The rest don't know how to drive. Or do stats but that's another matter. ;)

    BTW, Edmunds 0=60 time of the 6s AT matches MT's and C&D's at 8 seconds. They can't be all that bad.

    I'm not as concerned with the 0-60 as I am with low end torque due to the terrain I have to deal with. The 6i wasn't all that great on hills so I'm hoping and praying the 3s will be better. If it's not I just might go with the bigger car because I can't believe how much crap we have for this baby (Arriving any day now!).

    I test drove an SVT 5-door Focus a couple of weeks ago and it's a really great car. But, it takes premium fuel and I'd want to replace the original tires with something similar when they wear out (which I imagine won't take long). I don't know if I'm willing to take that plunge just yet. Especially when I could get a Mustang GT coupe (I know, it's less practical) for $1000 - $2000 more.
  • Options
    newcar31newcar31 Member Posts: 3,711
    "What I want to know is a number that tell me how my car will perform during passing a long truck on the one lane farmer road, how easy I can make lane merging on the Hwy, etc..."

    You want to know if the Mazda3 can effortlessly pass and merge on highways? No, it can't. You need to wring the 2.3L out to get the most out of it. Sounds like you need a V8. Effortless speed. My LX 5.0L Mustang barely needed a tap on the gas to pass people. You could beat up on most cars and the V8 wouldn't even be breaking a sweat.
  • Options
    dinu01dinu01 Member Posts: 2,586
    After my teaching day today, went to my dealer that politely informed me to go across the street as they have a few in their parking lot. So I went. ALL were AT BTW. This is Avante Toronto Preston.

    Titanium Sedan w/GFX
    Gold Sedan GS w/Power (I think)
    Silver Sedan GS w/Power + Sport <- MY EXACT COMBINATION!!!
    Copper HB (unsure it it was GS or GT)

    All were locked, except the rear door of the Silver GS w/Power+Sport - EXCELLENT!!!

    Opened the driver's door after crawling inside, sat in.

    The Good:
    Tilt+Telescoping Steering wheel
    Seat height adjustement lever easier to operate than knobs!
    Nice seat material
    Nice rubbery plastic on the dash (textured!)
    All pieces were tightly fitted togeter - no gaps!
    Sound of doors when closing
    Surprisingly little gap b/w the rear wheels and the 16" tires (unlike in the pics)
    The car is not as tall as it looks, even w/16" tires!!!

    The Bad:
    With 15" tires, it looks too tall and disproportionate (think Corolla)
    No SAB/SAC for Canada
    Not too crazy about the material that's on the doors, but it's fine overall.

    I did not drive it, but I can see myself living with the interior and enjoying it, even in GS trim.

    The beige interior's door padding screams cheap. Too bad, since I wanted a red w/beige, as the rest of the beign interior looks solid.

    So now I guess it's b/w blue, silver and titanium.

    Dinu
  • Options
    md_rocksmd_rocks Member Posts: 41
    Carsdirect has the Mazda3 in the pull-down list after you select "Mazda" for the make. No pricing stuff yet, but just good to know.

    As for the C&D test methods, it's a great measuring stick since they are very focused and make no qualms that in almost every comparison test they value performance above all else.

    Now if I could only stomach the huge price gap between the 3 and the P5, my mind would be 100% made up. I think the SAC option will clinch it, but $5K is a lot of pocket money.

    P.S. Bluong, you've provided so much comprehensive info I'll take this opportunity to thank you.
  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    it's mainly a labor of love.
  • Options
    wongpreswongpres Member Posts: 422
    Mazda3 performance:

    FWIW, my test drive butt dyno told me that the Mazda3 sedan 2.3l auto is faster than the Mazda6 2.3l auto (and the test drive route was the same for both).

    Dinu:

    Thanks for the info, I went to Avante Toronto last night and saw all the cars you mentioned except for the Titanium with GFX (which of course is the one I'm getting).

    Thanks for letting me know though because I still haven't seen a titanium and I'm putting down my order tomorrow. So I'll drop by Avante Toronto in the morning to check it out.

    If all goes well and I put down my order tomorrow, I'll let everyone here know.
  • Options
    dinu01dinu01 Member Posts: 2,586
    Ask for Eddie (the sales manager). He's very professional and upfront.

    The GFX looks good! And the rear clear lights are gorgeous.

    A salesguy I talked to said that they're getting their cars prepped today so they'll be ready for test drives tomorrow. Asked me to come by.

    Who knows, I just might have to since I'm not working (yey - FINALLY a Saturday off).

    Dinu
  • Options
    dinu01dinu01 Member Posts: 2,586
    Preston: It might be a good idea to call Mazda of Brampton (or whatever they're called). Seems like they have quite a few 3s.

    Dinu
  • Options
    wongpreswongpres Member Posts: 422
    Can you tell me Eddie's last name?

    The dealer I'm choosing first is Westowne, because I have a special pricing plan with them. However, if I don't like them then I'm going to go with one of the Avante's
  • Options
    pzevpzev Member Posts: 807
    "The beige interior's door padding screams cheap. Too bad, since I wanted a red w/beige, as the rest of the beign interior looks solid.

    So now I guess it's b/w blue, silver and titanium."

    What do you mean by door padding? Are you talking about the part of the door above the cloth or below it?

    Also you say you wanted a red with beige interior but then say you'll get one of the other colors with the black interior. You're changing your mind because of the door padding??
  • Options
    pzevpzev Member Posts: 807
    "2.0-AT: 10.3 s"

    That sounds reasonable to me. Anybody who has driven the Mazda3 and has driven a comparable body style/engine of the Protege, does the Mazda3 FEEL fast like the Protege does? That's one thing I always liked about the Protege, it FEELS fast even though it really isn't. Does the Mazda3 give this illusion as well?
  • Options
    pzevpzev Member Posts: 807
    "Volvo is responsible for structural design, crash performance and other safety features."

    Besides the chassis, Volvo has no input on safety measures on the Mazda3 correct?
  • Options
    doying5doying5 Member Posts: 83
    Sure enough, the Mazda3 landed at Morries today. I was on my way out for an appointment so I couldn't stay for very long. About 11 of us watched and drooled as they were unloaded.
    Copper Wagon
    Silver Wagon
    Blue Wagon
    Copper Sedan

    I have a P5 right now because I liked the body better than the Protege Sedan, but I love the new Sedan. It is so hot and muscular. I am sure they PDI'd them today for Saturday test drives.

    I gotta get their early to beat the snow and put her through the test before the customers show up.

    The Cargo area of the Wagon is really cool with the shelf configuration and the Subtrunk space. It is wider than my P5 too because of the new suspension set up.

    Local yocals gotta come and see!
    Dianne
  • Options
    patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Sorry folks, we can't allow you to make referral posts to specific salespeople. You can name a dealership, but you can't name a salesperson, nor post any contact information (link, email, phone, etc.).

    Thanks for your understanding.
  • Options
    stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,558
    As noted, CD strives for the best possible time, using whatever drag racing start technique gets them there. This isn't really applicable to real life, since not only won't most people flog their cars like that, it attracts too much attention doing a burnout at every stop light.

    However, they also perform and publish the results for a "street start" 5-60. Basically, they get to a steady 5 mph in first gear, then nail it. overall, this is probably more representative of normal driving.

    The street start also favors cars with a nice torque spread and a flexible engine. Cars like an S2000 are dogs in this test, since the great 0-60 times require 6000 rpm clutch drops.

    CR does 0-60 from a stop, but the start at idle (that is, no high RPM clutch drops). Again, probably more representative of "real life"

    Regardless, the 3 should be plenty fast for for normal use. And if it isn't fast enough for you, get a G35 or a Maxima.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • Options
    mazda6smazda6s Member Posts: 1,901
    You can call it a 5-door or hatchback, but please not "wagon"! ;)
  • Options
    lavaorange3lavaorange3 Member Posts: 128
    No Lava Orange Hatchbacks for out here, yet...but I've tentatively committed to, as my dealer describes it:

    "It is Titanium Gray with Black leather interior. It has ABS, moonroof, 6 disc in-dash changer, Xenon headlights, and wheel locks."

    It hits the dock a week from today, and will be ready to test drive a few days later.
  • Options
    bluong1bluong1 Member Posts: 1,927
    http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/mazda3/swf/mz3_brochure.pdf
  • Options
    baggs32baggs32 Member Posts: 3,229
    So it looks like folks in states that require lower emissions will sacrifice about 4 HP with the 2.0L but not with the 2.3L. Not to mention the added weight!

    I guess you can't be environmentally (which I am not when it comes to vehicles) conscious and drive the top performing model at the same time. At least they give you the option.

    It also mentions on page 5 that "passenger weight and driver's seat position sensors are standard". We talked about this before I think. Looks like they are using Ford's 'Personal Safety System' after all. If I'm not mistaken, I don't think any other small car has this feature yet either.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles