0-60

[MidnightDreamer]

Does anyone know the 0-60 times on the new Mazda 3? for both the 2.0 and 2.3l versions. It's kinda disapointing to hear that the car will only be 160hp for the 2.3 version. They shoulda made it 170... And what's with the torque difference... Can anyone explain to me why the bigger engine has less torque? and why the smaller one has so much more? Won't that make the car's acceleration times almost identical? Right right? Cuz the 2.3 will be heavier, and less torque, while the 2.0 will be lighter with more toque,,,,

[flat_black]

Torque has a lot to do with the bore and stroke numbers. To increase displacement you either a) increase bore, or b) increase stroke. =) Chances are the 160hp 2.3 just has a less-than-square bore/stroke.

Edmunds had a review of the 3, but with no times or anything:

http://www.edmunds.com/future/2004/mazda/3/100278520/preview.html?tid=edmunds.f.mmindex.content.num1.4. mazda*

Were I to wager a guess, the 2.0 probably runs a 8.5 or so 0-60, and the 2.3 probably clocks in around 8.2. Who knows, though. =) I'm just guessing.

[Captain KRM P5]

Road and Track concurs with your estimates with thier own, uh, estimates

[wongpres]

Originally posted by MidnightDreamer
Does anyone know the 0-60 times on the new Mazda 3? for both the 2.0 and 2.3l versions. It's kinda disapointing to hear that the car will only be 160hp for the 2.3 version. They shoulda made it 170... And what's with the torque difference... Can anyone explain to me why the bigger engine has less torque? and why the smaller one has so much more? Won't that make the car's acceleration times almost identical? Right right? Cuz the 2.3 will be heavier, and less torque, while the 2.0 will be lighter with more toque,,,,


Mazda Canada's website just made a mistake with the numbers (actually there are quite a number of errors on their new website). The Mazda3 2.3l has 160hp and 150lb-ft

[MidnightDreamer]

Yea, that sounds more right... I was wonderin how a smaller displacement engine could produce more torque than a larger one...

[Alantje]

0-60 for europe 2.0 150 hp version = 9 .0 sec

[flat_black]

Originally posted by MidnightDreamer
Yea, that sounds more right... I was wonderin how a smaller displacement engine could produce more torque than a larger one...

Have Honda make it, with their wierd bore to stroke ratios. =)

[Micah]

yeah, but look at the civic, I thought their engines were all HP and no Torque.

[flat_black]

I meant have Honda make the bigger engine. ;) Hehee. Just messing around. =)

[MidnightDreamer]

LOL, yea... But Honda makes good engines... VTEC is a little overrated, but even 127hp Si's are fast... Speaking of which, I've never raced one yet, but I'm sure the VTEC would kick in at some point and leave me trailing behind....

[Mazda3]

Has anyone here driven the 2.3L Mazda6 with 5spd?
It moves along pretty good.
Car and Driver tested it 0-60 in 7.8 1/4 mile 16.3

The Mazda3 is 350lbs lighter, look for 0-60 times of 7.5 with a good driver. Should dip into the high 15's in the 1/4. I will be very suprised if it can't beat a SE-R.

[jjac28]

Originally posted by Alantje
0-60 for europe 2.0 150 hp version = 9 .0 sec


mazdas are not known for making quick 0-60 cars, instead they make excellent handling cars.
mp5 might run parallel with the mazda3 from 0 to 60.

[MidnightDreamer]

There is no way the M3 would run parallel to a P5....
The FS-DE is way outdated... It has no form of variable valve timing, and it's old.... almost 13years old... 130hp vs. 150hp? No contest... Esp. since the M3 is lighter, and the engine is more modernized...

Thanks to Mazda3 for the info!

[MidnightDreamer]

Just wondering, what is 7.8 seconds on par with? It seems very close to the accel times for the Celica Gt/GTs, the new Accords, and the Sentra SE-R's... High 15's would definetely be something to cheer about... A stock RSX runs high 15's as well... Plus it seems like there's a lot of room for mods on this engine... Starting from a higher displacement 160hp engine leaves for a pretty high performance potential. Aftermarket should be pretty good in a while too. Wouldn't all the stuff for the Mazda 6's 2.3l work for the M3's 2.3l as well? They're the same engine right?

Just wish i could afford one lol...

[jjac28]

Originally posted by MidnightDreamer
There is no way the M3 would run parallel to a P5....
The FS-DE is way outdated... It has no form of variable valve timing, and it's old.... almost 13years old... 130hp vs. 150hp? No contest... Esp. since the M3 is lighter, and the engine is more modernized...

Thanks to Mazda3 for the info!


i wish someone would have told me that when i was buying my mp5:rolleyes:

an old engine is no good

[MidnightDreamer]

Hold on a sec, I wasn't bashing on the FS-DE, it's an awesome engine... It could stand to be 20 or 30 horses stronger, but 130 is enought for getting around town... It's a really reliable engine as well, which explains why it has been in use for so long... But overall, it's a slow engine and that's why i want a Mazda 3... If there was a way I could pop a new M3's 2.3l into my Protege as is, I would be the happiest person in the world...

[Alantje]

Originally posted by jjac28
mazdas are not known for making quick 0-60 cars, instead they make excellent handling cars.
mp5 might run parallel with the mazda3 from 0 to 60.

well those 9 secs are specs from mazda itself........ they claim 9 sec from 0-100 km/h 2.0 150 HP

the p5 131HP got the specs like 9.7 from 0-100km/h

i think the 2.3 160HP will be 8.5s from 0-100

[dugrant153]

how does the 9 seconds from the 2.0L compare to the other cars in the same class? (Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Suzuki Aerio, etc.)

[Alantje]

Originally posted by dugrant153
how does the 9 seconds from the 2.0L compare to the other cars in the same class? (Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Suzuki Aerio, etc.)

specs corolla 8.4secs for the 192 hp version`10.2s for 110hp
civic type r 200hp 6.8secs 110hp 10.2

mazda3 105 hp version `11sec

[jjac28]

Originally posted by Alantje
well those 9 secs are specs from mazda itself........ they claim 9 sec from 0-100 km/h 2.0 150 HP

the p5 131HP got the specs like 9.7 from 0-100km/h

i think the 2.3 160HP will be 8.5s from 0-100


the MP5 goes from 0-60 mph in 8.8sec (Motor Trend)
and 9.2sec as tested by Car and Driver...all manual .

Add another second or two for an automatic. (10.6sec as Tested by Consumer Reports)

So you see the MP5 might be just as fast as the Mazda 3.

Think back to the 1999/2000 Protege with the 1.8l engine, it 's slightly quicker then the 2001/2003 Protege. (8.6sec to 0-60)

[YuYuRena]

Originally posted by MidnightDreamer
Can anyone explain to me why the bigger engine has less torque

Engine control issues can do alot to torque. ignition timing and valve for example.

[MidnightDreamer]

Sorry to say this, but I'm really skeptic that the current Protege's could beat any given 3 at acceleration. Mazda numbers I wouldn't trust, they tend to be a bit conservative when they post thier numbers... It was posted earlier by someone that car and driver tested the M3 2.3l at 7.8 seconds. I'm a bit skeptic about that too. Everyone seems to have differing opinions, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Alantje]

Originally posted by jjac28
the MP5 goes from 0-60 mph in 8.8sec (Motor Trend)
and 9.2sec as tested by Car and Driver...all manual .

Add another second or two for an automatic. (10.6sec as Tested by Consumer Reports)

So you see the MP5 might be just as fast as the Mazda 3.

Think back to the 1999/2000 Protege with the 1.8l engine, it 's slightly quicker then the 2001/2003 Protege.

i think they will almost perform the same more power but more weight for the mazda3

maybe slightly faster then the current mp5 like they claim ...

[jjac28]

i predict a difference of .5 seconds between mp5 and mazda3.
but wel'll see....

[dmitrik4]

why do people think honda engines make "no torque?" they make plenty of torque for their size. (e.g., the 160hp RSX motor make 143 ft-lbs. i believe the last 195hp Prelude made ~160ft-lbs.)

sure, their HP/torque ratios are different than most, but that comes from having a higher redline than most comparable engines. they make the same torque as other comparable enignes, but a lot more power. and power is what counts in the end.

Originally posted by MidnightDreamer
Just wondering, what is 7.8 seconds on par with? It seems very close to the accel times for the Celica Gt/GTs, the new Accords, and the Sentra SE-R's... High 15's would definetely be something to cheer about... A stock RSX runs high 15's as well...
Just wish i could afford one lol...

i think a stock (base 160hp) RSX runs high 15s. weighs about the same as the 3, so i don't think that's an unreasonable estimate.