Bottom line, the sound of the engine of a turbo 4 is a lot sweeter than a turbo 6, and the car is lighter, less understeer, better gas consumption, and why more than 274 horsepower thats going to be a daily car for a lot of people that buy, it's not like speed limits are 200 mph.
why the 2.3L instead of the V-6?
- Thread starter dmitrik4
- Start date
BinaryRotary
Member
- :
- 03 MSP, 85 RX-7 GS, 90 RX-7 TII
There is no V-6 in Japan or Europe. If they plan on distributing the car to other countries it would be a total waste of time and money to make two different cars.
BinaryRotary
Member
- :
- 03 MSP, 85 RX-7 GS, 90 RX-7 TII
There is a difference between Twin Turbos and Sequential Turbos.
twin are the same size and mostly found on dual header projects where sequential solves the problem of to small or too big a turbo issue. 2 size turbos used in sequential. smaller turbo spools for low end and once it boosts enough to start spooling the bigger one IIRC wastegate opens for smaller one and bigger take it from there.
Seems someone hasn't heard many V6 Twin Turbo's...
As for weight...the Ms6 will be around 200-300 lbs heavier then a standard 6i MTX...which will result in more plowing. (It technically should be heavier then a 6s MTX based on the specs and included packages) Though the AWD will help with understeer issues, the fact it will never allow for more then a 50% rear bias (unlike almost every other AWD car on the market) will mean that "power on understeer" will still be a massive issue with this vehicle.
BinaryRotary said:
I realize that I'm new here, but I wanted to clear this up. The difference isn't between twin tubos and sequential turbos. It's between twin sequential and twin parallel turbos. I'm running twin sequential tubos in my FD.
Back to the thread, I agree that using the more mass produced 2.3L makes more financial sense. Look at Nissan/Infiniti, they put different versions of the VQ35DE in almost every thing they make.
Last edited:
scapamouche
Member
???? Most AWD vehicles are VERY nose heavy... I really can't think of ANY off the top of my head that are not heavy in the nose (except for a very small number of mod engine AWD cars like the old (now) Diablo VT) Even the EVO has something like a 64/36 f/r weight split.crossbow said:
The WRX is another good example... and yes, it DOES plow... BADLY.... That is why very few WRXs are running in the stock class for autox (and why the MSP can eat them up when they do run DS...)
That said, I do agree that a 3400-3500lb MS6 is going to have understeer issues unless Mazda is very careful. It can be done: the EVO has WONDERFUL handling, despite the heavy front end, but like I said, Mazda will have to come thru again. One note, though: Power has never been Mazda's strong suit, but handling has, so I'm optimistic about the balance of the MS6.
Evo Mr is 60/40 btw, and it just beat the lotus extige in top gear's track scoreboard. (It was only 0.2 seconds away from beating the 250k lambo!!!) And thats with an old school strut based suspension. (With the 6 having a wonderful double wishbone front).
The bias btw I was talking about...was the torque distribution, not the weight distribution.
The ms6's AWD system runs 100:0 till slippage occurs, then it can transfer a maximum of 50% of the power to the rear wheels for a 50/50 torque bias. I'd rather the car have a more neutral bias, and then be able to transfer the torque around...like pretty much every other AWD car on the market thats currently competitive.
Here's a cut and paste of competitive AWD setups from other cars...
Jaguar X-Type
http://www.jaguarusa.com/us/en/vehicles/x-type/performance/performance.htm
There are some 6s members who have started (and not succeeded yet) at figuring out a way to take the jag's system (from a junkyard) and throw it on a 6s.
Infiniti G35x
http://www4.xpresssites.com/lee/lacrosse/au/story.jsp;jsessionid=D9D203765338D6B7F2EA640681F89D1A?_RND=-467440885
http://www.engine-power.com/subaru/legacy_gt_press.html
http://www.acura.com/models/model_perf_index.asp?module=rl#
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications/noframes.jsp?trim=WRX_SEDAN&model=IMPREZA
Mitsu Evo
The bias btw I was talking about...was the torque distribution, not the weight distribution.
The ms6's AWD system runs 100:0 till slippage occurs, then it can transfer a maximum of 50% of the power to the rear wheels for a 50/50 torque bias. I'd rather the car have a more neutral bias, and then be able to transfer the torque around...like pretty much every other AWD car on the market thats currently competitive.
Here's a cut and paste of competitive AWD setups from other cars...
Jaguar X-Type
http://www.jaguarusa.com/us/en/vehicles/x-type/performance/performance.htm
Duratec V6 3.0 Liter Platform. I think the 02's have 30:70...though I could just be wrong and its actually 40:60. (Thats the standard distribution)
There are some 6s members who have started (and not succeeded yet) at figuring out a way to take the jag's system (from a junkyard) and throw it on a 6s.
Infiniti G35x
http://www4.xpresssites.com/lee/lacrosse/au/story.jsp;jsessionid=D9D203765338D6B7F2EA640681F89D1A?_RND=-467440885
Legacy 2.5 GT
http://www.engine-power.com/subaru/legacy_gt_press.html
Acura 3.5 RL
http://www.acura.com/models/model_perf_index.asp?module=rl#
Subaru WRX
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications/noframes.jsp?trim=WRX_SEDAN&model=IMPREZA
I could snag a whole lot more examples...but you get the idea.
Mitsu Evo
These are examples of competitive AWD sedans. Note that in all instances, power is to all 4 wheels to at least SOME extent. The Mazdaspeed 6 doesn't follow this system as its standard setup is 100:0. Its a FWD sedan that "can become" an AWD one. This is the most disappointing aspect of it in my eyes.
Last edited:
anarchistchiken
Member
- :
- 03 Silver Protege5
Binary got pwn3d (lol2)93RedX7 said:
why power all 4 wheels when you don't need to? all that does is eat up gas and increase driveline losses.
well, and make you look cool on intArweb message boards.
actually, infiniti's system is the same as mazda's, but opposite. the G35x is normally 100% RWD. when wheel slippage occurs, it "becomes" an AWD sedan.
****
i don't think binary got pwnd. i think he and redx7 were talking about different things. unless i'm missing some weird, obscure meaning of the word "twin," i understand it to mean "two, identical" things.
so "twin sequential" turbos would be sequential identical turbos...and i'm not sure i can recognize the benefit of such a setup.
what i understood binary to mean was "two turbos of differing sizes." one smaller which spools up first, the second being larger which spools up later.
...by definition, NOT "twin."
well, and make you look cool on intArweb message boards.
actually, infiniti's system is the same as mazda's, but opposite. the G35x is normally 100% RWD. when wheel slippage occurs, it "becomes" an AWD sedan.
****
i don't think binary got pwnd. i think he and redx7 were talking about different things. unless i'm missing some weird, obscure meaning of the word "twin," i understand it to mean "two, identical" things.
so "twin sequential" turbos would be sequential identical turbos...and i'm not sure i can recognize the benefit of such a setup.
what i understood binary to mean was "two turbos of differing sizes." one smaller which spools up first, the second being larger which spools up later.
...by definition, NOT "twin."
Its all about handling dynamics. For the general boring consumer...no, it doesn't matter one bit. But when your talking about performance, on a car thats possibly going to be tracked or autocrossed, it makes all the difference.
Thats why some manufacturers have purposely setup AWD cars to have rear bias's..because it then drives like a RWD car.
Having a FWD setup which swaps back and forth between AWD and FWD just seems like it would be really annoying if you were trying to do something performance wise on a track. Can you imagine going into one turn and the car behaving like a FWD car...then the next turn its AWD? Give me one or the other please
.Btw the G35x quote is direct from their website. I've heard the exact same comments you made in regards to its drivetrain bias, but thats not whats on the website.
Regardless, as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong), the Mazdaspeed 6 is the ONLY AWD car in the 20k to 40k segment that runs with a 100:0 bias standard. All the rest are running some sort of "mixed" torque distribution standard. My reasoning behind this decision was that the AWD system is from the euro 6 wagon...which has less then half the torque of the ms6 (which is also why the transfer case is watercooled), and that the standard system can't handle the increased torque load enough to warrant a different torque bias. I could be wrong, but thats still my theory.
Cause honestly...when your buying a 270+ bhp turbocharged car...gas mileage isn't one of your primary concerns.(boom02)
Last edited:
crossbow said:Its all about handling dynamics. For the general boring consumer...no, it doesn't matter one bit. But when your talking about performance, on a car thats possibly going to be tracked or autocrossed, it makes all the difference.
Thats why some manufacturers have purposely setup AWD cars to have rear bias's..because it then drives like a RWD car.
Having a FWD setup which swaps back and forth between AWD and FWD just seems like it would be really annoying if you were trying to do something performance wise on a track. Can you imagine going into one turn and the car behaving like a FWD car...then the next turn its AWD? Give me one or the other please
Btw the G35x quote is direct from their website. I've heard the exact same comments you made in regards to its drivetrain bias, but thats not whats on the website.
Regardless, as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong), the Mazdaspeed 6 is the ONLY AWD car in the 20k to 40k segment that runs with a 100:0 bias standard. All the rest are running some sort of "mixed" torque distribution standard. My reasoning behind this decision was that the AWD system is from the euro 6 wagon...which has less then half the torque of the ms6 (which is also why the transfer case is watercooled), and that the standard system can't handle the increased torque load enough to warrant a different torque bias. I could be wrong, but thats still my theory.
Cause honestly...when your buying a 270+ bhp turbocharged car...gas mileage isn't one of your primary concerns.(boom02)
Everything crossbow says makes sense. Supposedly Mazda has made changes to this AWD system to handle the extra power and make the power transfer to the rear wheels quicker than the regular system. However they haven't said exactly how this was done so we really won't know until someone drives one. From Mazdas stand point I don't think this car is aimed at people who are going to actually autocross it on a regular basis.
My biggest worry at this point is how fast will this car be? I won't pay $39k CDN for this car if it runs a 14.5 1/4 mile. The STi and EVO run low to mid 13's, there is know reason this car shouldn't run 13.8-13.9 if it makes the power its rated at. If its that fast I want one, if not I don't.
See I debate this fact. This is a MAZDASPEED car...not a normal mazda. The car's supposed to be designed to be driven by aggressive owners...and even in competitive events.
The MSP's really tear up the autox courses due to their setup/design. I'd imagine with their race divisons mazda would be doing the same.
You don't get mazdaspeed 6 sales from walk ons...9 times out of 10 the individual has gone to the dealership (a mazdaspeed dealer...which eliminates alot of dealers from the get go) specifically wanting the speed.
I guess you could just be like "i like how it looks and i won't die in the snow" type person...but then if your along that thinking, there is a bunch of other nice cars you could get that fullfill the same purpose, at less cost.
And before you get into the "its a sedan"...remember that this mid-sized sedan just took first at laguna seca...and is winning competitions all over the US. Its chassis/suspension setup is one of the best in its range.
The MSP's really tear up the autox courses due to their setup/design. I'd imagine with their race divisons mazda would be doing the same.
You don't get mazdaspeed 6 sales from walk ons...9 times out of 10 the individual has gone to the dealership (a mazdaspeed dealer...which eliminates alot of dealers from the get go) specifically wanting the speed.
I guess you could just be like "i like how it looks and i won't die in the snow" type person...but then if your along that thinking, there is a bunch of other nice cars you could get that fullfill the same purpose, at less cost.
And before you get into the "its a sedan"...remember that this mid-sized sedan just took first at laguna seca...and is winning competitions all over the US. Its chassis/suspension setup is one of the best in its range.
and my point is that, regardless of the (undeniable) success of the 6 in roadracing, most serious autoXers aren't going to be running such a big car.
for those who are going to run the car, i have my doubts about how much of a handicap the AWD system's setup will prove to be. regardless, the design itself proves Mazda3's point- if it were mainly aimed at those who will compete in it, it wouldn't have a lot of the attributes it seems to have.
instead, it's aimed at those who might otherwise get into a Legacy or something similar. and for those people, the mazda system will work just fine.
for those who are going to run the car, i have my doubts about how much of a handicap the AWD system's setup will prove to be. regardless, the design itself proves Mazda3's point- if it were mainly aimed at those who will compete in it, it wouldn't have a lot of the attributes it seems to have.
instead, it's aimed at those who might otherwise get into a Legacy or something similar. and for those people, the mazda system will work just fine.
