it's a great car for what it is, and what were you thinking they were comparing the mz3 to??
When I read car comparisons I see ti as an overall this is how the car is/does/will be compared to whatever else is out there and in its class. I guess I didn't pay close enough attention to their fine print that said "only compared to other economy cars ONLY."
It sound slike your main gripe is the fact that it doesnt have low end torque like larger engines... The fact is that 4 bangers will never have the low end grunt as a v6 or a v8. You want a fast car and steller gas mileage and one of hte few cars that meet that req are a speed.
To me it just sounds like your used to the low end grunt of larger engines vs smaller eco engine. If thats the case no small car will work for you!
Yea the main problem is anywhere between 2.5K and 4.5K RPM is that there's no power. The car does good off the line and as long as it doesn't have to get going when you're doing 40 in 4th (mid range speaking) then it's good. I personally love the low-end power, midrange, and high-end power Volvo's engines put down...all your torque between 1500-5000RPM...and the power of a V8 since the ones I've driven are idling about mid-range when you're just driving along.
I don't drive any V6's much...I'm an odd engine or big engine type of person.
You need to get an intake and a catback and slam that b**** to the ground.
intake...will do
cat-back...will do
slam that b**** to the ground...yea idk I got issues with putting people in it now and going over bumps so I don't think that one's on the list
Your not looking at overall cost of things, R&D that goes into the structure and size of the car, the different diminsions that effect the way the car handles and feels. Mazda wanted to introduce this car with a competitive price while still delivering on quality and fuel economy. They did just that. It leads its class in fit and finish and styling. It has a good power for a fuel efficient engine.
theres a reason mazda put that powertrain in the car. Theres a reason it has the size of a gas tank it does. R&D costs money, the more money you put into the car, the more the price of the car is, making it less competitive in its class. The engineers at the car companies arent idiots, they design things for a reason.
For example. If the car had a bigger fuel tank this would add weight as well as upset the overall balance of the car. That added weight would also mean less power per pound...
Now with your logic you would say that mazda should put a bigger engine in it. Fair enough, so they up the displacement (which costs money because of this magical R&D) and the car now puts out 10 more hp. Oh but now the car doesnt meet the smog requirements for the cali and federal states, so those cars have to get separate different catalytic components, which costs extra money because R&D goes into that, as well as the actual separate production of those particular engines and exhaust parts.
Its not a performance car. Its a sport japanese economy car. If you wanted to spin the wheels and burn rubber you should have bought a different car. Or have just learned manual, which isnt that hard anyway.
its all about balance. The mazda3 is a balance b/w quality, power and fuel efficiency without being overpriced for its class.
the p5 guys are the ones that got the short end of the stick, but you dont see us complaining. Mostly because we know and accept what our cars are good at.
edit: also to add, my friend with a mazda3s dynoed at 155whp on a dynojet with intake and a HKS power exhaust. His car is just as fast as a stock MSP.
I get why they didn't do it but the tank is dead center on the car and another 2 gallons would be greatly appreciated and most likely won't do too much to the car's balance and all the fun stuff. I'm just saying some aspects of the car could have been bigger and it wouldn't have cost too much more to do it. The car is cheap enough as it is so another 1-2K added to the price isn't all that bad. In this segment it is but alltogether it's not.
Hopefully if I can get around to those mods before I get so fed up and sell ti, they will gain me that much power also. At that point, it will be fine.
Volvo s60r . . . acura TL-S . . . for what you pay those are slow. If comfort is what your going for than sure but they aren't even faster than a speed 6.
They totally aren't faster than a speed6...yea because 300HP 300TQ is a lot less than 260HP 280TQ which is a MS3's output. And then you add in weight so the S60R is about 4000-4600lbs which means anywhere between 13.33lbs/HP to 15.33lbs/HP and the MS6 is probably about that weight or heavier but I doubt much lighter if that.
The TL-S sure, it probably is about the same speed as an MS6 but it puts more power to the ground and losses less through the AWD system that it lacks.
So the S60R is definitely faster than a speed6 but the TL-S is very close to the same thing probably a bit faster.
If you're going for the pricepoint then yes, they are slower than an MS6 but in reality they are faster and more refined and the Acura would cost less to maintain...not so sure about the Volvo though...
Sorry for the extensively long response but I wanted to cover everybody thoroughly.
