Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to learn more!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
Ken
drfill
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.)
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
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.
http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/- 38029
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.
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.
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?
I agree with that. The terrain around here does not permit high speed driving whatsoever so I'm going for handling this 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.
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.
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?
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.
Sorry if my message came off offensive. I'm not blaming you. I was really just looking for some proof from C&D.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"The later method is more representative about what the engine is capable of in the real life."
What method is this?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Dinu
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
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??
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?
Besides the chassis, Volvo has no input on safety measures on the Mazda3 correct?
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
Thanks for your understanding.
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.
"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.
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.