BTW - Weight isn't all bad - if used in the right places in the right vehicle. Life in drive isn't all about 0-60 or going from point A to point B; it's more like the experience in between.
AWD is beneficial no matter what the terrain. Ordinary people (e.g. strictly commuters) don't see those advantages - enthusiasts do. Sure, there are pluses/minuses to everything. Really, what does 1 or 2 less miles per gallon translate into real monies anyway on an annual basis? $75.00? Another $75.00 for maintenance (cost of maintaining the AWD unit only)? Worth it in my book.
Well, after reading the press release from Mazda, I must say that I am quite pleased to hear what they had to say. Seeing that the car will have a LSD, that is wonderful. I do wish they were offering it in a sedan, but, we can't have everything. As for it not having AWD. I stated in a previous post that it's obvious that Mazda is not trying to take on the EVO/STi, which does not bother me. Mazda is not into producing rally cars. I'm still wondering how much power the North American version will have. I am not one for translating power numbers from euro spec's to horse power. Anyone out there know how to?? :confuse:
As for possible competition, as you can tell from my subject, I believe the car will be compared to the Civic Si, VW GTI 2.0T, and possibly the Chevy Cobalt SS and Dodge Caliber SRT. With real horse power numbers still TBD, I can't really say for sure that this car will perform better then them, but, it's shaping up to be that way. With exception to the rumored 300hp Caliber.
I'm not talking about how the car may ultimately be FASTER (since AWD will allow you to put the power down better, particularly in a curve). I'm talking about how rewarding (for an enthusist) the car may be to drive.
Personally, I like the fact that the power CAN overcome available traction, particularly in a corner. Having to soft pedal the car a bit simply means I have to be a better driver to go fast (in other words, good driving is rewarded while sloppy driving is not).
But with AWD, all I've got to do is mash the gas and steer. Is it quicker? I suppose so. And many people swear by automatic transmissions as 'just as good' as a manual and in many ways faster. But (in my book) not as enjoyable.
We may just have to agree to disagree and WAIT until the car is actually available and tested.
As for it not having AWD. I stated in a previous post that it's obvious that Mazda is not trying to take on the EVO/STi, which does not bother me. Mazda is not into producing rally cars.
I still don't understand how having AWD automatically translates into rally racing. The Audi A3 showed up on our shores with only front wheel drive but a couple of good engines. It is slated for AWD availability and more engine choices. Yet, I don't consider that to be rally racing at all. It's a great car with a great chassis and great engines (though pricing could use some work). Now, why can't a Mazdaspeed 3 compete against the likes of the Audi A3 AWD? Wow, Dodge and Chevy - there's some real competition.
still don't understand how having AWD automatically translates into rally racing. The Audi A3 showed up on our shores with only front wheel drive but a couple of good engines. It is slated for AWD availability and more engine choices. Yet, I don't consider that to be rally racing at all. It's a great car with a great chassis and great engines
Well, if you read my post, you would notice that I made no reference to the Audi A3. My only statement was directed towards the EVO and STi. The A3 only has 200hp unless you get the $35K A3 3.2S (VW R32) and that even has less horsepower then the Mazdaspeed3. Its a glorified GTI. The EVO and STi are practically taken off the rally course, and placed on the street. That is apparent not only by the sick performance numbers, but also by appearance (gaudy high rear wing spoilers, meaty front ends) So, that reinforces my statement that "Mazda is not going after EVO/STi..." So, once again, I will say as I said a long time ago. Mazda is apparently not going after EVO/STi group, which is fine by me. They are more or less going for the FWD high performance, but yet, affordable.
"I'll answer that question with a question: why the limited slip diff.?"
HA! Good question!
Ummmmmmmmmm, increased ability to put down power to the pavement?
I know where you're going with this....I think you and I differ only in degrees.
I want to have equal torque delivered to both the left and right side when going straight AND in a corner. A LSD helps the car to accomplish this. I am taking it on faith (and I could well be wrong) that Mazda has taken adequate steps to control torque steer on the new MS3. I also want the car to have the ability to break the tires loose (whether going straight or in a corner) so that I have to exercise a little right-foot throttle management...in other words, take a more active role in actually DRIVING the car. I can't see that with AWD.
I'm still trying to figure out (and you haven't said) how AWD would make the MS3 better? Do you want it because you are anticipating bad torque steer with FWD and a high torque motor? Why not wait to see actual driving impressions before you pass judgement. If it turns out the car is barely driveable and jinks for the nearest ditch whenever the boost comes up, then I'll admit you were right. But if Mazda can keep the torque steer under control with a FWD setup, then I'll be happy.
Or do you want AWD just because you feel it is the 'wave of the future' for all high-powered sportscoupes without really knowing WHY the current AWD cars have it?
BTW - I'm reminded of the debate that went on when Ford announced that their all-new from the ground up '05 Mustang would be equipped with a solid rear-end rather than an IRS. I remember all the gnashing of teeth and the naysayers (mostly GM fans) predicting the Mustangs handling would be an uncontrollable mess. Didn't turn out that way....sometimes, with good engineering and suspension design, all that expensive, heavy hardware ISN'T necessary.
I'm still trying to figure out (and you haven't said) how AWD would make the MS3 better?
It would make it a well rounded vehicle - not the best in any one category, but certainly great at each, and all at an affordable price (say $26K). Like combining a subi with a VW/Audi. Obviously torque steer is a concern, but it's only part of the picture. And with all that torque, I wouldn't be so eager to break those tires loose (unless of course the pavement is silky smooth new). Otherwise, you may end up breaking more than just the tires.
The weather isn't always going to be sunny - north, south, east or west. Part of the reason all vehicles are equipped with windshield wipers (besides Federal standards). And (just like the wipers) whether ltd. slip or AWD, all should come equipped with on/off switches for the ultimate driving experience 24/7!
"It would make it a well rounded vehicle - not the best in any one category, but certainly great at each, and all at an affordable price (say $26K)."
That's true. It would be a well rounded vehicle. But my question is:
If an AWD version was out there for $26k and a FWD version for $23k, would the AWD version offer $3k worth more fun?
"And with all that torque, I wouldn't be so eager to break those tires loose (unless of course the pavement is silky smooth new). Otherwise, you may end up breaking more than just the tires."
Why? If they resolve the torque steer issue (and I'll admit it is an issue which needs resolving with that amount of torque), why would you have a concern with breaking the tires loose?
Would it screw up your line through a corner? Sure, it might. So exercise a little caution in your throttle application - you know...DRIVE the car. With AWD, you don't have that concern. Heck, just nail the throttle whenever you want and don't worry about breaking the tires loose or what it might do to your line. Why, it's so easy a monkey could go fast in that car.
Breaking the tires loose or chirping the tires??? Ltd. slip will give u a chirp - kind of like birds (since u brought up the monkey paragon) on an early spring day (before they are infected avian flu).
Now, if that ltd. slip comes with an I/O switch, then breaking those tires (maybe just one tire) loose is possible and so is breaking a drive shaft, etc. If Mazda could get away from offering the limited slip they would - but think of all the warranty claims on the drive train in less than 1 year or under 12K miles!
My point is this: I would like to see the equipment offered in the MS6 in the MS3 so that it will eventually (I hope) trickle down to the other units like the mundane 3 and the mundane 5. But until that happens,... Now, the ltd. slip will be in an OPTION for future Mazda 3 vehicles (except base models)
Today, my 3 got stuck in my driveway in 2 inches of snow. The drive way is on a slight decline with a bump on the end to keep the street water from draining in. Last night I parked it in reverse and it was easy enough to get out first this this morning. I got stuck in first gear, but after a couple of tries I threw it into second and out I came - torqueless But on my return from running errands I parked it forwards (wasn't really thinking). A half hour later when I was heading for work, I was stuck trying to get out. Reverse only has one gear so torque was the issue. Could have used AWD. And no, I'm not getting a Subi. I like the way the 3 drives; just have to get it on the street to actually drive the darn thing.
"Could have used AWD. And no, I'm not getting a Subi. I like the way the 3 drives; just have to get it on the street to actually drive the darn thing."
If torque was the issue (which apparently it was) traction control would have helped your situation. Perhaps some snowtires on beater steel rims?
Apparently you live in an area where low traction situations are somewhat common. Hence, I understand your desire for more traction (since more traction would at least give you SOME traction).
However, I don't see snow. If there is even the THREAT of more than 3 flakes in the air, the city goes into panic mode and everybody leaves work early to get home before they are socked in. Trust me. Adequate traction (at least adequate for my needs) is NOT an issue. So for me, AWD would be essentially worthless.
Apparently you live in an area where low traction situations are somewhat common.
Everyone lives in an area where low traction situations arise. Best example is any stopping point on a rainy day (especially light drizzle or just starting to rain). Things like a traffic lights, toll booths, or what have you. Everyday car/truck oils mix with the water and you know the rest. Another example are Californians - tanning at the beach at noon; snow skiing down the slopes at 4 pm. Or how about a cross country trip (unless one is a hermit)? Can't predict the low traction situations all the time.
They do a fairly good job of cleaning the roads when it snows. Obviously, my driveway is not included. I could safely say that 98% of the time fwd will do. But the remaining 2% will make me forget about all of the good times.
Perhaps some snow tires on beater steel rims? Let's say it cost $1000 for snow tire and rims (17" steel hard to come by and saving isn't much over alloy) - that would include the tires, rims, and mounting twice annually over 5 years. Compare that to $3k for AWD system - net $2K. Not much cost savings (when you think about the rebates they offer today). Then there's the hassle of switching tires. On the other hand, snow tires are not as expensive to maintain as an AWD system. And any weight gain (if any) is trivial as compared to AWD.
"Everyone lives in an area where low traction situations arise."
Sure. To put it in perspective however, I've been driving since 1977 and I've been in 3 instances (on pavement) where I needed more traction than either FWD or RWD provided. They each involved sheet ice where AWD was of no additional value and I had no business being on the road anyway.
I can't speak for your conditions. However, for my conditions AWD would be a 100% waste. Is FWD the 'best' drivetrain for a performance vehicle? No, I vastly prefer RWD.
Another advantage of snow tires would be the ability to corner and brake substantially better. AWD would ONLY give you the ability to apply power better but would be of very little help in cornering and do absolutely nothing for stopping.
We're beating a dead horse. Mazda is not building the MS3 in an AWD version. We simply have a difference of opinion regarding the value of AWD. It may be time we stopped hijacking this thread with neverending debate regarding the relative merits of AWD vs. FWD (probably a better, more generic forum for it anyway).
guys... can the AWD vs. FWD debate go somewhere else? Mazda isn't likely to change the layout of the MS3 b/c of this debate (and while you both make good points, I'm not sure the info belongs here).
Anyhow... when does this car arrive in the US for test drives?
Another site is stating that the the MS3 will do 0-60mph in just over 4 seconds! I can't imagine blowing by cars twice as expensive in something so practical and reliable
Yes, thanks to all for recognizing that we drifted a bit, and getting back to the MS3!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
3x in 29 years? Doesn't sound like you get out much or at least stray too far from home.
How much do you predict the 250+ HP and 280 lbs. ft. torque will benefit you? Mind you there are speed limits(unless you are a law officer yourself), physical limitations (unless your God), and what have you. And if so, is 250+ HP really enough? True, we buy horsepower and we drive torque, but would 275+ HP be more beneficial if one could make use of 250+HP?
I know, you know where I'm going with this argument as well.
Ditto on the RWD. Just to add - one of the best RWD mfg. in the world has an AWD version.
Has anyone seen any information on this? The Mazdaspeed6 is significantly heavier than the Mazda6.
Also, is the additional weight distributed or concentrated in the front? The current 60/40 distribution is not ideal, adding more weight to the front will not improve the situation.
The Acura RSX Type S is a good example of adding speed without adding a whole ton of metal.
Anyhow... when does this car arrive in the US for test drives?
Given Mazda's track record, I don't see this vehicle arriving on our shores until 2007 as a 2008 model. The reason I say this is because the Mazdaspeed6 debuted in 2004, and we didn't get it until late November 2005. Also, Mazdaspeed does vehicles for 2 years, and has yet to have an overlap in Mazdaspeed production. So, that would leave the Mazdaspeed3 as a 2008 model.
Another site is stating that the the MS3 will do 0-60mph in just over 4 seconds!
Unfortunately, there is an abundance of misinformation on the internet. That site would be claiming that the MS3 is faster then the EVO and STi, which, it will not be. Mazda is claiming it will do "under 6 seconds 0-60"
Has anyone seen any information on this? The Mazdaspeed6 is significantly heavier than the Mazda6.
Well, Mazda is claiming it will still be light. I don't see how they can add much weight without adding AWD. The 2.3L DISI turbo engine is not all the heavy, but, the hood is, on the MS6.
The Acura RSX Type S is a good example of adding speed without adding a whole ton of metal.
The Type-s is not all the different from the base RSX. Still same engine, tuned different. Where as the Mazdaspeed3 will be vastly different from the Mazda3, as is the Mazdaspeed6 from the Mazda6. However, you are correct in the fact that Honda is pretty good at making a quick, light car.
"3x in 29 years? Doesn't sound like you get out much or at least stray too far from home."
Not going to take the bait. I'm not going to convince you that the MS3 will be fine as Mazda plans to release it just as you're not going to convince me the car would have been substantially better with AWD.
"U c, the horse still has some life."
Regarding the horse -
E's passed on! This horse is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't propped 'em in 'is stall, 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the farm! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
The naturally aspirated Honda 4 bangers don't have a lot of torque or twist - I think they hover the 150 lbs. ft. mark when excluding Cali emissions. So, without alot of twist, Honda is able to keep/instal standard hardware. With a significant bump in torque (current 2.3 at 150 lbs. ft. vs. 2.3 turbo disi at 280 lbs. ft. - almost double), though, many of the drivetrain and chassis/suspension items need to be upgraded. I guess Mazda could invest more into heavy duty alloy replacements on the chassis/suspension, but then the car would dramatically increase in price.
My money is on a 2007 MS3. The R & D that went into the S6 really went into both projects. Think about it - the engine is the same. All Mazda probably did to reduce cavallos is restrict the exhaust - tada. Drivetrain, although uprgraded from the standard 3, probably not much different up front than the S6 (just critcal dimensions). They don't have to worry about additional drivetrain components that went into making the S6 (dare I say it). And I'm sure the other upgrades to the chassis/suspension items (over the standard 3) probably came from a codeveloped parts bin (the European Focus is currently undergoing the same surgery as the S3).
Gee, now the S3 isn't looking too special after all. Maybe the price will reflect the same. Or maybe the R & D and tooling cost for building the speedsters was amortized over building x number of S6s plus y numbers of S3s. In other words, the S6 price was held in check by strategically pricing S3. Recall where the S6 is built (hint: it isn't built in the US) vs. the other 6.
They don't have to worry about additional drivetrain components that went into making the S6 (dare I say it). And I'm sure the other upgrades to the chassis/suspension items (over the standard 3) probably came from a codeveloped parts bin (the European Focus is currently undergoing the same surgery as the S3).
I wonder if you have driven the MS6? Did you have it on a track to see how it drives? I have. The car sticks to the road like glue! I really don't think there is anything wrong with how the MS6 was built. Yeah, it's heavy, but, it still preforms very well. Also, if Mazda developed all the parts for the vehicle, why is it not special? And where did you see that the MS3 will be a "parts bin" vehicle? It really only shares a platform with the Focus,S40, a Mazda developed platform, might I add. And really, how much of the car is actually "the platform"...not too much. Also, what info do you have the the MS6 was "held in check by strategically pricing the MS3"??? Or, are you guessing? The MS6 is priced excellent! Where can you get THAT MUCH of a car for $30,000??, really..the MS6 has been in development since 2003, a full year before we even saw a Mazda3! So, that really negates your statement. If the MS3 is priced at MAX, $25,000, that would be decent. Considering a WRX goes for a $25-26K. And the WRX does not handle all that well, AWD and all. Very mushy suspension. The STi is great, but it's $33,000. So, from where I sit, I see there is great value in the MS3 if it stayed below $25K.
Well geeee, doesn't the 6 rear suspension look familiar (that was me back in 2002)? Sure does! Looks like the suspension of the Focus 1. Come again? Focus 1? Not exactly, but close (raw data; no calipers used). The modified 6's rear suspension then became the basis for the rear of the Focus 2, S40/V50, C-Max, Mazda 3/5, etc. Really, do I need to go any further? Okay, so the front suspension is unique.
I've owned and driven dozens of Mazdas in the past, including a couple of speedsters in that mix. I believe Mazda could make a superstar out of a cement truck.
Parts bin indeed. And what guessing? And very soon that AWD system will be amortized along with the Lincoln MXK (and maybe in the future on the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan; this would probably explain why the MS3 doesn't get one - not enough to go round). Please don't ignore the simple fact that Mazda has to make some $$$ on the speedsters. The MS6 wasn't unique in design (just execution); it was all strategically calculated.
Mazda hasn't turned on their faithful. Though they are too concerned about stepping on their own toes to realize that some other mfg. may be eating their lunch. In the end, they are just trying survive in a very competitive market.
Also, what info do you have the the MS6 was "held in check by strategically pricing the MS3"??? Or, are you guessing? The MS6 is priced excellent!
You not only asked the question, but answered it as well? The MS6 is a bargain. Let's just see where they price the MS3. Anything other than the low-20s is a rip off.
Let's just see where they price the MS3. Anything other than the low-20s is a rip off
Considering the MSRP for the current non-speed Mazda3 hatchback can top U$20K I expect the price to be about U$23K. If it was less than that it would be very competitive; if more, it risks price itself out of the running.
Here is what another poster found by emailing Mazda.
"Thank you for contacting Mazda North American Operations. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you. In regards to your inquiry, the new MAZDASPEED3 is estimated to be available in September of this year. Unfortunately, we do not have the finalized specifications at this time. We should have more information June/July. I hope this information will be helpful. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Zoom-Zoom! ... Regards, Charlie K. Specialist, Customer Assistance"
Could have been sooner, if it were not for big brother's toes. And probably for the fact that they can't make the engines/transmission quick enough.
Unfortunately, we do not have the finalized specifications at this time.
Mazda is probably reviewing their overstock list of options for the speed 6 that could be retrofited to the speed 3 as standard or optional equip. Ok, it sounds far fetched, but they've come this far... And don't even think about that double arm front suspension - not going to happen.
"Unfortunately, we do not have the finalized specifications at this time."
I don't think the options list for the MS6 has that much to do with final specs on the MS3. They are probably still in the final testing/development stages on the MS3 (and trying to gauge what the competition is likely to offer) before releasing their own specs.
I don't see how anyone could pick the Caliber SRT over the MS3 just because it has 50 more HP. Not everyone loves the hatch, compared to the Caliber it's beautiful. It's great that Dodge is giving the people what they want in terms of power with the Caliber SRT (& Charger, $ Magnum). But why did they give Caliber/Charger/Magnum the same fugly grille as the Dodge pickup trucks? Is it laziness in that they can't take the time to design another grille for their cars, separate from the trucks? If it's intentional, it's definitely taking the design unity thing way too far. Actually, I saw a Charger with an aftermarket grille the other day and it looked pretty good. I don't think there's any hope for the Caliber since it's ugly all around.
But why did they give Caliber/Charger/Magnum the same fugly grille as the Dodge pickup trucks? Is it laziness in that they can't take the time to design another grille for their cars, separate from the trucks? If it's intentional, it's definitely taking the design unity thing way too far
Well, it's called "design DNA". Most makes today have it to some extent, and Dodges'is the cross on the grill with the ram head somewhere in there.
I don't think there's any hope for the Caliber since it's ugly all around.
If the Caliber does not sell, its because it's a Dodge, not cause it's ugly. Look at the STi, that's pretty damn ugly, if you ask me. The STi sells bacause of the HP and AWD and Subaru makes a good car. Same cannot be said for Dodge.
Though the face of the auto industry is changing. The Dodge Magnum (Chrysler 300) look and drive great. And they should since they're built off of the E series Benz chassis. The Caliber is fairly fugly looking. The back looks like the Cheby Malibu Maxx and the front looks steroidical.
On the other hand, didn't Subaru copy Alfa in their latest DNA design? Take the B9 suv: the front and the rear is an Alfa design UPSIDE DOWN. Did Subaru really think we wouldn't notice?
I'm not sure what is worse: copying or a horrible original design like the Pontiac Aztek?
Sorry to all for getting off the subject.
So far, reviews of the runabout Calibers put in below the 3. Like I said before, Mazda could make a supercar out of a cement truck.
I know this is off-topic but this topic is kind of slow right now anyway. So: design DNA, I knew there a term for it. Yeah, but I don't think other manufacturers are cross-pollinating their truck DNA with their car DNA. Pickup trucks emphasize power and load carrying ability over aerodynamics, speed, and handling. To me the use of Dodge cross is strongly associated with their pickups and I think it looks stupid on their cars.
Re: STi. It's ugly in good, sporty way. The Caliber is ugly in bad, awkward way and I think they want it to look like a little Durango. Does it make sense to do the performance package on little SUV as a replacement for the Neon/SRT4? If it doesn't sell well, I think it might be because it's mixing up it design DNA too much.
I think Mazda is doing a great job crafting their design DNA.
Staying off topic 'cause like I said it's a little slow here (we need more MS3 news!): yeah, the grille on the Subaru B9 is positively silly. It looks like it has a stuffy nose or something. The Alfa grille works great right side up on the Alfa, but Subaru needs to deep6 that design DNA quick before it spreads unchecked throughout the brand like bird flu or something. Maybe it's a cultural thing and they like that look somewhere else in the world, but I don't think it will fly in the US.
Did I mention that I really like the styling of the MS3?
2.0 L turbo 270+ hp AWD with 6 speed DSG tranny. Now that should be the future MS3 benchmark. Especially since Audi may have an RS3 (6 cyl. turbo AWD, etc) in the works good for 350+hp (which is definitely out of Mazda's reach, though the 3's engine bay area shows otherwise).
Mazda could do it for thousands of $$$ less. But will they ever??? Come on Mazda, those turbo SUVs will never garner any real street creds. Time to blow all the competition away and start raking in the awards (unlike the MS6). This is no time to behind the 8 ball.
I don't really think Mazda in too concerned about the Audi A3. Their direct competition on the MAzda5 5-door is the Matrix/Vibe/PT Cruiser/VW Golf. I guess you could throw in the A3, but, not the RS3.
Come on Mazda, those turbo SUVs will never garner any real street creds.
Street credit? I don't think we will be seeing the CX-7 on the street all hooked up, racing 2 large, or for slips! Just check out the demographics for the CX-7, they say nothing to the effect of "boy racers". The CX-7 is targeted to sell 60K units in it's first year, thats really big for Mazda.
Time to blow all the competition away and start raking in the awards (unlike the MS6). This is no time to behind the 8 ball.
The regular Mazda3 is winner of over 60 awards world wide. The MS6 has gained much praise, just look at the site you are posting on and see the "head to head" with Subaru's coveted Subaru Legacy GT Spec B. MS6 wins.....
Mazda 3's competition is really the Civic. Why? Currently, one of a few vehicles without the option of AWD. All the other cars listed have AWD as an option (minus the PT Cruiser which will eventually ride on the Caliber chassis which has AWD as an option).
Turbo SUV's have NOTHING to do with zoom zoom. Or maybe that is it, Mazda is dropping out of the zoom zoom busines.
Oh and speaking of the Caliber, how interesting it is to see the AWD option available on lesser models and not available for the SRT-4. Chrysler CLAIMS that the AWD system isn't beefed up enough to handle all that power and torque. Oh really? Caliber is probably off the Mitsubishi Lancer (as was planned for future Chrylser econo boxes). The Caliber engine was co-developed with Mitsubishi and Hyundai. The Lancer has AWD for their high powered turbo. Probably same AWD system now available as an option for the Caliber (saves time and money vs. having to develop your own). Don't know anything about the tranny, but probably Mitsubishi sourced, as well (more of the same - time and money).
IMHO - Chrysler entered into a contract with Mitsubishi promising not to step on their toes. Now, that is more difficult to explain to the public as the reason why AWD is not available on the SRT-4. No different than the MS3 w/o AWD vs. the MS6 with AWD.
It's been said here before, but I think it bears repeating that the exclusion of AWD in the Mazdaspeed3 was likely done to: a) reduce the cost of the Mazdaspeed3 and make it competitive price-wise with other high performance vehicles (e.g. RSX type S); b) position it below the Mazdaspeed6 to enable both to find an appropriate audience; c) reduce its weight to compensate for the detuned engine's horsepower and thus in effect boosting its power to weight ratio (aka performance). By keeping the weight and price down while balancing the power output in relation to the Mazda3 and Mazdaspeed6 I presume Mazda thinks it is offering another interesting alternative to us consumers.
What the heck? If you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want AWD that bad, why not just get a Mazdaspeed6?
BTW - I was under the impression that the reason the Caliber SRT-4 was going FWD only was due to the strength of the CVT unit used on the AWD version; not due to the strength of the AWD system itself. Now, why they can't used the same transaxle as the SRT-4 with the remainder of the AWD system, I don't know.
What can I say - I'm dedicated. Besides someone on this forum mentioned that Mazda may be waiting to c what the competition does before making some last minute packaging decisions. Well guess what some of the competion is doing?
Mazdaspeed 6 Wagon - Yes Mazdaspeed 6 Sedan - Forgetaboutit
Comments
Most likely not - definitely not owned on, for sure.
My opinion about this whole AWD ordeal is best summed up by Car and Driver on their internet site referencing the MS3 now at the Geneva show.
BTW - Weight isn't all bad - if used in the right places in the right vehicle. Life in drive isn't all about 0-60 or going from point A to point B; it's more like the experience in between.
AWD is beneficial no matter what the terrain. Ordinary people (e.g. strictly commuters) don't see those advantages - enthusiasts do. Sure, there are pluses/minuses to everything. Really, what does 1 or 2 less miles per gallon translate into real monies anyway on an annual basis? $75.00? Another $75.00 for maintenance (cost of maintaining the AWD unit only)? Worth it in my book.
Worth it in my book
As for possible competition, as you can tell from my subject, I believe the car will be compared to the Civic Si, VW GTI 2.0T, and possibly the Chevy Cobalt SS and Dodge Caliber SRT. With real horse power numbers still TBD, I can't really say for sure that this car will perform better then them, but, it's shaping up to be that way. With exception to the rumored 300hp Caliber.
Based on onlineconversion.com the 184 kw stated in the article translates into 246 hp (international) or 250 hp (metric).
In other words, the Mazdaspeed3:
- has over 50% more power than the 160 hp Mazda3
- has about 10% less power than the 276 hp Mazdaspeed6.
And the benefits (to an enthusist) are.....?
I'm not talking about how the car may ultimately be FASTER (since AWD will allow you to put the power down better, particularly in a curve). I'm talking about how rewarding (for an enthusist) the car may be to drive.
Personally, I like the fact that the power CAN overcome available traction, particularly in a corner. Having to soft pedal the car a bit simply means I have to be a better driver to go fast (in other words, good driving is rewarded while sloppy driving is not).
But with AWD, all I've got to do is mash the gas and steer. Is it quicker? I suppose so. And many people swear by automatic transmissions as 'just as good' as a manual and in many ways faster. But (in my book) not as enjoyable.
We may just have to agree to disagree and WAIT until the car is actually available and tested.
To convert from KW to HP.
1 kilowatt = 1.341 022 092 horsepower [international]
1 kilowatt = 1.359 621 617 horsepower [metric]
For more information go to http://www.onlineconversion.com/power.htm
I still don't understand how having AWD automatically translates into rally racing. The Audi A3 showed up on our shores with only front wheel drive but a couple of good engines. It is slated for AWD availability and more engine choices. Yet, I don't consider that to be rally racing at all. It's a great car with a great chassis and great engines (though pricing could use some work). Now, why can't a Mazdaspeed 3 compete against the likes of the Audi A3 AWD? Wow, Dodge and Chevy - there's some real competition.
:confuse:
Seems like a natural association to me. In what other form of motorsports is AWD big?
AWD has a huge advantage over FWD.....in low traction situations, ie. dirt/snow
When I think 'high performance vehicles' and 'dirt/snow', rally racing is the first thing that pops into MY head....
If the vast majority of your driving is on high traction surfaces (dry pavement), how does AWD benefit you?
Well, if you read my post, you would notice that I made no reference to the Audi A3. My only statement was directed towards the EVO and STi. The A3 only has 200hp unless you get the $35K A3 3.2S (VW R32) and that even has less horsepower then the Mazdaspeed3. Its a glorified GTI. The EVO and STi are practically taken off the rally course, and placed on the street. That is apparent not only by the sick performance numbers, but also by appearance (gaudy high rear wing spoilers, meaty front ends) So, that reinforces my statement that "Mazda is not going after EVO/STi..."
So, once again, I will say as I said a long time ago. Mazda is apparently not going after EVO/STi group, which is fine by me. They are more or less going for the FWD high performance, but yet, affordable.
I'll answer that question with a question: why the limited slip diff.?
HA! Good question!
Ummmmmmmmmm, increased ability to put down power to the pavement?
I know where you're going with this....I think you and I differ only in degrees.
I want to have equal torque delivered to both the left and right side when going straight AND in a corner. A LSD helps the car to accomplish this. I am taking it on faith (and I could well be wrong) that Mazda has taken adequate steps to control torque steer on the new MS3. I also want the car to have the ability to break the tires loose (whether going straight or in a corner) so that I have to exercise a little right-foot throttle management...in other words, take a more active role in actually DRIVING the car. I can't see that with AWD.
I'm still trying to figure out (and you haven't said) how AWD would make the MS3 better? Do you want it because you are anticipating bad torque steer with FWD and a high torque motor? Why not wait to see actual driving impressions before you pass judgement. If it turns out the car is barely driveable and jinks for the nearest ditch whenever the boost comes up, then I'll admit you were right. But if Mazda can keep the torque steer under control with a FWD setup, then I'll be happy.
Or do you want AWD just because you feel it is the 'wave of the future' for all high-powered sportscoupes without really knowing WHY the current AWD cars have it?
BTW - I'm reminded of the debate that went on when Ford announced that their all-new from the ground up '05 Mustang would be equipped with a solid rear-end rather than an IRS. I remember all the gnashing of teeth and the naysayers (mostly GM fans) predicting the Mustangs handling would be an uncontrollable mess. Didn't turn out that way....sometimes, with good engineering and suspension design, all that expensive, heavy hardware ISN'T necessary.
It would make it a well rounded vehicle - not the best in any one category, but certainly great at each, and all at an affordable price (say $26K). Like combining a subi with a VW/Audi. Obviously torque steer is a concern, but it's only part of the picture. And with all that torque, I wouldn't be so eager to break those tires loose (unless of course the pavement is silky smooth new). Otherwise, you may end up breaking more than just the tires.
The weather isn't always going to be sunny - north, south, east or west. Part of the reason all vehicles are equipped with windshield wipers (besides Federal standards). And (just like the wipers) whether ltd. slip or AWD, all should come equipped with on/off switches for the ultimate driving experience 24/7!
That's true. It would be a well rounded vehicle. But my question is:
If an AWD version was out there for $26k and a FWD version for $23k, would the AWD version offer $3k worth more fun?
"And with all that torque, I wouldn't be so eager to break those tires loose (unless of course the pavement is silky smooth new). Otherwise, you may end up breaking more than just the tires."
Why? If they resolve the torque steer issue (and I'll admit it is an issue which needs resolving with that amount of torque), why would you have a concern with breaking the tires loose?
Would it screw up your line through a corner? Sure, it might. So exercise a little caution in your throttle application - you know...DRIVE the car. With AWD, you don't have that concern. Heck, just nail the throttle whenever you want and don't worry about breaking the tires loose or what it might do to your line. Why, it's so easy a monkey could go fast in that car.
Maybe that's the problem.....
Now, if that ltd. slip comes with an I/O switch, then breaking those tires (maybe just one tire) loose is possible and so is breaking a drive shaft, etc. If Mazda could get away from offering the limited slip they would - but think of all the warranty claims on the drive train in less than 1 year or under 12K miles!
My point is this: I would like to see the equipment offered in the MS6 in the MS3 so that it will eventually (I hope) trickle down to the other units like the mundane 3 and the mundane 5. But until that happens,... Now, the ltd. slip will be in an OPTION for future Mazda 3 vehicles (except base models)
Today, my 3 got stuck in my driveway in 2 inches of snow. The drive way is on a slight decline with a bump on the end to keep the street water from draining in. Last night I parked it in reverse and it was easy enough to get out first this this morning. I got stuck in first gear, but after a couple of tries I threw it into second and out I came - torqueless But on my return from running errands I parked it forwards (wasn't really thinking). A half hour later when I was heading for work, I was stuck trying to get out. Reverse only has one gear so torque was the issue. Could have used AWD. And no, I'm not getting a Subi. I like the way the 3 drives; just have to get it on the street to actually drive the darn thing.
If torque was the issue (which apparently it was) traction control would have helped your situation. Perhaps some snowtires on beater steel rims?
Apparently you live in an area where low traction situations are somewhat common. Hence, I understand your desire for more traction (since more traction would at least give you SOME traction).
However, I don't see snow. If there is even the THREAT of more than 3 flakes in the air, the city goes into panic mode and everybody leaves work early to get home before they are socked in. Trust me. Adequate traction (at least adequate for my needs) is NOT an issue. So for me, AWD would be essentially worthless.
Everyone lives in an area where low traction situations arise. Best example is any stopping point on a rainy day (especially light drizzle or just starting to rain). Things like a traffic lights, toll booths, or what have you. Everyday car/truck oils mix with the water and you know the rest. Another example are Californians - tanning at the beach at noon; snow skiing down the slopes at 4 pm. Or how about a cross country trip (unless one is a hermit)? Can't predict the low traction situations all the time.
They do a fairly good job of cleaning the roads when it snows. Obviously, my driveway is not included. I could safely say that 98% of the time fwd will do. But the remaining 2% will make me forget about all of the good times.
Perhaps some snow tires on beater steel rims?
Let's say it cost $1000 for snow tire and rims (17" steel hard to come by and saving isn't much over alloy) - that would include the tires, rims, and mounting twice annually over 5 years. Compare that to $3k for AWD system - net $2K. Not much cost savings (when you think about the rebates they offer today). Then there's the hassle of switching tires. On the other hand, snow tires are not as expensive to maintain as an AWD system. And any weight gain (if any) is trivial as compared to AWD.
Sure. To put it in perspective however, I've been driving since 1977 and I've been in 3 instances (on pavement) where I needed more traction than either FWD or RWD provided. They each involved sheet ice where AWD was of no additional value and I had no business being on the road anyway.
I can't speak for your conditions. However, for my conditions AWD would be a 100% waste. Is FWD the 'best' drivetrain for a performance vehicle? No, I vastly prefer RWD.
Another advantage of snow tires would be the ability to corner and brake substantially better. AWD would ONLY give you the ability to apply power better but would be of very little help in cornering and do absolutely nothing for stopping.
We're beating a dead horse. Mazda is not building the MS3 in an AWD version. We simply have a difference of opinion regarding the value of AWD. It may be time we stopped hijacking this thread with neverending debate regarding the relative merits of AWD vs. FWD (probably a better, more generic forum for it anyway).
Mazda isn't likely to change the layout of the MS3 b/c of this debate (and while you both make good points, I'm not sure the info belongs here).
Anyhow... when does this car arrive in the US for test drives?
Another site is stating that the the MS3 will do 0-60mph in just over 4 seconds! I can't imagine blowing by cars twice as expensive in something so practical and reliable
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
How much do you predict the 250+ HP and 280 lbs. ft. torque will benefit you? Mind you there are speed limits(unless you are a law officer yourself), physical limitations (unless your God), and what have you. And if so, is 250+ HP really enough? True, we buy horsepower and we drive torque, but would 275+ HP be more beneficial if one could make use of 250+HP?
I know, you know where I'm going with this argument as well.
Ditto on the RWD. Just to add - one of the best RWD mfg. in the world has an AWD version.
U c, the horse still has some life.
Also, is the additional weight distributed or concentrated in the front? The current 60/40 distribution is not ideal, adding more weight to the front will not improve the situation.
The Acura RSX Type S is a good example of adding speed without adding a whole ton of metal.
Given Mazda's track record, I don't see this vehicle arriving on our shores until 2007 as a 2008 model. The reason I say this is because the Mazdaspeed6 debuted in 2004, and we didn't get it until late November 2005. Also, Mazdaspeed does vehicles for 2 years, and has yet to have an overlap in Mazdaspeed production. So, that would leave the Mazdaspeed3 as a 2008 model.
Another site is stating that the the MS3 will do 0-60mph in just over 4 seconds!
Unfortunately, there is an abundance of misinformation on the internet. That site would be claiming that the MS3 is faster then the EVO and STi, which, it will not be. Mazda is claiming it will do "under 6 seconds 0-60"
Well, Mazda is claiming it will still be light. I don't see how they can add much weight without adding AWD. The 2.3L DISI turbo engine is not all the heavy, but, the hood is, on the MS6.
The Acura RSX Type S is a good example of adding speed without adding a whole ton of metal.
The Type-s is not all the different from the base RSX. Still same engine, tuned different. Where as the Mazdaspeed3 will be vastly different from the Mazda3, as is the Mazdaspeed6 from the Mazda6. However, you are correct in the fact that Honda is pretty good at making a quick, light car.
Not going to take the bait. I'm not going to convince you that the MS3 will be fine as Mazda plans to release it just as you're not going to convince me the car would have been substantially better with AWD.
"U c, the horse still has some life."
Regarding the horse -
E's passed on! This horse is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't propped 'em in 'is stall, 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the farm!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-HORSE!!
:P
My money is on a 2007 MS3. The R & D that went into the S6 really went into both projects. Think about it - the engine is the same. All Mazda probably did to reduce cavallos is restrict the exhaust - tada. Drivetrain, although uprgraded from the standard 3, probably not much different up front than the S6 (just critcal dimensions). They don't have to worry about additional drivetrain components that went into making the S6 (dare I say it). And I'm sure the other upgrades to the chassis/suspension items (over the standard 3) probably came from a codeveloped parts bin (the European Focus is currently undergoing the same surgery as the S3).
Gee, now the S3 isn't looking too special after all. Maybe the price will reflect the same. Or maybe the R & D and tooling cost for building the speedsters was amortized over building x number of S6s plus y numbers of S3s. In other words, the S6 price was held in check by strategically pricing S3. Recall where the S6 is built (hint: it isn't built in the US) vs. the other 6.
Hey Mazda, u r good! Nah!
Bring on the test drives!
:shades:
I wonder if you have driven the MS6? Did you have it on a track to see how it drives? I have. The car sticks to the road like glue! I really don't think there is anything wrong with how the MS6 was built. Yeah, it's heavy, but, it still preforms very well. Also, if Mazda developed all the parts for the vehicle, why is it not special? And where did you see that the MS3 will be a "parts bin" vehicle? It really only shares a platform with the Focus,S40, a Mazda developed platform, might I add. And really, how much of the car is actually "the platform"...not too much.
Also, what info do you have the the MS6 was "held in check by strategically pricing the MS3"??? Or, are you guessing? The MS6 is priced excellent! Where can you get THAT MUCH of a car for $30,000??, really..the MS6 has been in development since 2003, a full year before we even saw a Mazda3! So, that really negates your statement.
If the MS3 is priced at MAX, $25,000, that would be decent. Considering a WRX goes for a $25-26K. And the WRX does not handle all that well, AWD and all. Very mushy suspension. The STi is great, but it's $33,000. So, from where I sit, I see there is great value in the MS3 if it stayed below $25K.
Hey Mazda, u r good!!! :P
I've owned and driven dozens of Mazdas in the past, including a couple of speedsters in that mix. I believe Mazda could make a superstar out of a cement truck.
Parts bin indeed. And what guessing? And very soon that AWD system will be amortized along with the Lincoln MXK (and maybe in the future on the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan; this would probably explain why the MS3 doesn't get one - not enough to go round). Please don't ignore the simple fact that Mazda has to make some $$$ on the speedsters. The MS6 wasn't unique in design (just execution); it was all strategically calculated.
Mazda hasn't turned on their faithful. Though they are too concerned about stepping on their own toes to realize that some other mfg. may be eating their lunch. In the end, they are just trying survive in a very competitive market.
Also, what info do you have the the MS6 was "held in check by strategically pricing the MS3"??? Or, are you guessing? The MS6 is priced excellent!
You not only asked the question, but answered it as well? The MS6 is a bargain. Let's just see where they price the MS3. Anything other than the low-20s is a rip off.
Considering the MSRP for the current non-speed Mazda3 hatchback can top U$20K I expect the price to be about U$23K. If it was less than that it would be very competitive; if more, it risks price itself out of the running.
"Thank you for contacting Mazda North American Operations. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you. In regards to your inquiry, the new MAZDASPEED3 is estimated to be available in September of this year. Unfortunately, we do not have the finalized specifications at this time. We should have more information June/July. I hope this information will be helpful. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Zoom-Zoom! ...
Regards,
Charlie K.
Specialist, Customer Assistance"
Unfortunately, we do not have the finalized specifications at this time.
Mazda is probably reviewing their overstock list of options for the speed 6 that could be retrofited to the speed 3 as standard or optional equip. Ok, it sounds far fetched, but they've come this far... And don't even think about that double arm front suspension - not going to happen.
I don't think the options list for the MS6 has that much to do with final specs on the MS3. They are probably still in the final testing/development stages on the MS3 (and trying to gauge what the competition is likely to offer) before releasing their own specs.
final testing/development stages
check
trying to gauge what the competition is likely to offer
R u telling us that Mazda may possibly decontent the standard speed 3 prior to its appearance?
Time for Mazda to get ahead of the curve. Oh well!
Well, it's called "design DNA". Most makes today have it to some extent, and Dodges'is the cross on the grill with the ram head somewhere in there.
I don't think there's any hope for the Caliber since it's ugly all around.
If the Caliber does not sell, its because it's a Dodge, not cause it's ugly. Look at the STi, that's pretty damn ugly, if you ask me. The STi sells bacause of the HP and AWD and Subaru makes a good car. Same cannot be said for Dodge.
On the other hand, didn't Subaru copy Alfa in their latest DNA design? Take the B9 suv: the front and the rear is an Alfa design UPSIDE DOWN. Did Subaru really think we wouldn't notice?
I'm not sure what is worse: copying or a horrible original design like the Pontiac Aztek?
Sorry to all for getting off the subject.
So far, reviews of the runabout Calibers put in below the 3. Like I said before, Mazda could make a supercar out of a cement truck.
Re: STi. It's ugly in good, sporty way. The Caliber is ugly in bad, awkward way and I think they want it to look like a little Durango. Does it make sense to do the performance package on little SUV as a replacement for the Neon/SRT4? If it doesn't sell well, I think it might be because it's mixing up it design DNA too much.
I think Mazda is doing a great job crafting their design DNA.
Did I mention that I really like the styling of the MS3?
Mazda could do it for thousands of $$$ less. But will they ever??? Come on Mazda, those turbo SUVs will never garner any real street creds. Time to blow all the competition away and start raking in the awards (unlike the MS6). This is no time to behind the 8 ball.
Come on Mazda, those turbo SUVs will never garner any real street creds.
Street credit? I don't think we will be seeing the CX-7 on the street all hooked up, racing 2 large, or for slips! Just check out the demographics for the CX-7, they say nothing to the effect of "boy racers".
The CX-7 is targeted to sell 60K units in it's first year, thats really big for Mazda.
Time to blow all the competition away and start raking in the awards (unlike the MS6). This is no time to behind the 8 ball.
The regular Mazda3 is winner of over 60 awards world wide. The MS6 has gained much praise, just look at the site you are posting on and see the "head to head" with Subaru's coveted Subaru Legacy GT Spec B. MS6 wins.....
Turbo SUV's have NOTHING to do with zoom zoom. Or maybe that is it, Mazda is dropping out of the zoom zoom busines.
Oh and speaking of the Caliber, how interesting it is to see the AWD option available on lesser models and not available for the SRT-4. Chrysler CLAIMS that the AWD system isn't beefed up enough to handle all that power and torque. Oh really? Caliber is probably off the Mitsubishi Lancer (as was planned for future Chrylser econo boxes). The Caliber engine was co-developed with Mitsubishi and Hyundai. The Lancer has AWD for their high powered turbo. Probably same AWD system now available as an option for the Caliber (saves time and money vs. having to develop your own). Don't know anything about the tranny, but probably Mitsubishi sourced, as well (more of the same - time and money).
IMHO - Chrysler entered into a contract with Mitsubishi promising not to step on their toes. Now, that is more difficult to explain to the public as the reason why AWD is not available on the SRT-4. No different than the MS3 w/o AWD vs. the MS6 with AWD.
Um....a turbo SUV, such as the CX-7 IS Zoom-Zoom. Mazda states that's why they used the MZR 2.3L DISI Turbo, to keep in the spirit of "zoom-zoom"
What the heck? If you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want AWD that bad, why not just get a Mazdaspeed6?
BTW - I was under the impression that the reason the Caliber SRT-4 was going FWD only was due to the strength of the CVT unit used on the AWD version; not due to the strength of the AWD system itself. Now, why they can't used the same transaxle as the SRT-4 with the remainder of the AWD system, I don't know.
There was an article a couple of years ago that questioned what Jesus would be driving today.
I have a better one: what does Michael Schumacher drive? I don't have the answer but probably not a CX-7.
Mazdaspeed 6 Wagon - Yes
Mazdaspeed 6 Sedan - Forgetaboutit
Well, that's ONE way to look at it..... :P
"Well guess what some of the competion is doing?"
Ummmm.....introducing high output FWD 4-door hatchbacks?
I suppose he drives a company car (i.e. a Ferrari). :P