Nliiitend1
Member
I can't. (dunno)
2010 speed 3 faster than 08
- Thread starter 02stang951
- Start date
I saw a video a couple weeks back comparing the 1st and 2nd gen Speed3s. It showed that the 1st gens had a faster 0-60 by a couple tenths of a second, while the 2nd gen finished the 1/4 mile in a similar time but at a slightly higher speed because of the taller gears. Your first gen will pull harder up through 2nd gear or so, but the 2nd gen will start to get faster after that.
And the better inter-cooler performance from the giant hood scoop definitely helps a bit at higher speeds.
Mod away! If you just get a CAI you should be faster than a stock 2010.
And the better inter-cooler performance from the giant hood scoop definitely helps a bit at higher speeds.
Mod away! If you just get a CAI you should be faster than a stock 2010.
first off. ive seen the car in your avatar. It was at an autox at nassau coliseum. I want a try!
second. the difference in cooling is negligible. the gearing is within 2% of first gen and there is a bit of a weight gain. So in all they should be dead even. It would be a drivers race for sure. Big difference between the 2 is the ecu logic. Since it has a different tune even though it is mechanically the same it will behave differently. From what ive seen theyve toned down the rawness of the 1st gen to make it feel more refined...hence it may be a tad slower
second. the difference in cooling is negligible. the gearing is within 2% of first gen and there is a bit of a weight gain. So in all they should be dead even. It would be a drivers race for sure. Big difference between the 2 is the ecu logic. Since it has a different tune even though it is mechanically the same it will behave differently. From what ive seen theyve toned down the rawness of the 1st gen to make it feel more refined...hence it may be a tad slower
Last edited:
Haha, that FSAE car is a monster. I am half disappointed I graduated and moved away simply because I don't get to drive the complete beastly awesomeness of that car. If you see it again take a close look at it when it's off the track and ask a lot of questions. Dennis and Adam (the two other guys that primarily designed and built, it along with myself) are incredibly knowledgeable and generally more than happy to talk about it. At some point I'd like to make my own mid-engine open-wheel race car with a MZR DISI power plant... bear in mind that car is putting out only ~65hp at the transmission and is capable of a 3.7s 0-60mph time....
Anyway, enough thread jacking...
The two gens wind up dead even in terms of time on a 1/4 mile from what i've seen with subtle changes in their dynamic performance up until that point. The first gen was only 2 or 3 tenths faster in the 0-60mph speed, and the 2nd gen was only 2 or 3 mph faster at the finish of the 1/4mile. Subtle mechanical changes with subtle performance changes.
With the *slightly* taller gearing the turbo boost will have a little more time to build up boost as one is driving through the gears resulting in that "harder pull" feeling, especially at part throttle/lower RPM.
Anyway, enough thread jacking...
The two gens wind up dead even in terms of time on a 1/4 mile from what i've seen with subtle changes in their dynamic performance up until that point. The first gen was only 2 or 3 tenths faster in the 0-60mph speed, and the 2nd gen was only 2 or 3 mph faster at the finish of the 1/4mile. Subtle mechanical changes with subtle performance changes.
With the *slightly* taller gearing the turbo boost will have a little more time to build up boost as one is driving through the gears resulting in that "harder pull" feeling, especially at part throttle/lower RPM.
Last edited:
Thanks 8.5MS3 for the good clear pictures of the scoop and engine bay.
I think the differences between the two gens showing up in test reports are within the margin of error of driving skill and measuring equipment.
Magazine racing is a poor substitute for direct comparison of two cars under the same conditions on the same track on the same day at the same time and then having the two drivers swap cars and make repeated runs. That's the only way to be sure, and I doubt the difference would be measurable if done accurately.
Example: If we want to "magazine race" take the current December issue of Car and Driver. The 2010 bone stock MS3 they tested on that day was slower in BOTH 0-60 and in the quarter mile by several tenths and several mph lower trap speed, compared to a first gen MS3 they had previously tested. They made this observation in the text of the article.
Does this mean that all 2010 MS3's will be similarly slow? No. The difference was within reasonable margin of error. We all also know that every engine and drive train component in a car is manufacured and assembled to certain tolerances. One car can have all the variations in tolerance favor developing a bit more power, while another car might have the cumulative effect of those tolerance variations favor a bit less power, even though they came off the assembly line back to back.
I do question the benefit/detriment decision making of Mazda to put those slots in the underhood part of the hood scoop, compared to the completely sealed previous design. This does allow some outside air to get into the engine bay where the airbox or an aftermarket intake could maybe get some cooler air. That would be a good thing. It also would allow some means for heat in the engine bay to have a way for some modest escape route, also a good thing. That would both tend to favor an advantage in performance --- maybe. But this is at the expense of heating up the air that is hitting the intercooler coils and thereby reducing intercooler effeciency. Those slots are actually pretty big.
See attached pix. Sorry for the low-res. Best I could find, but shows those slots in each side, too, not just in the back.
To what extent this tradeoff is an overall benefit or detriment, is unknown. Since both the gen 1 sealed ram air and the gen 2 external scoop appear to work very well, this may just be nothing more than an interesting academic exercise.
The big change does appear to be the difference in ECU tuning. Mazda could probably soften the delivery of power in first and second gear without actually adversely affecting performance because we can't use the available power in either gear right now without overpowering the tires. Full power is relatively useless in those gears unless you are on the dragstrip and running drag radials or outright slicks on front. My guess is that in the hands of a good driver who knows how to launch high powered fwd cars and who has practiced 60 ft times with both cars, that bone stock gen 1 and gen 2 cars will probably have virtually identical 60 fts. That's just a educated guess trying hard to master (poorly) 60 ft times in a gen 1 MS3.
I think the differences between the two gens showing up in test reports are within the margin of error of driving skill and measuring equipment.
Magazine racing is a poor substitute for direct comparison of two cars under the same conditions on the same track on the same day at the same time and then having the two drivers swap cars and make repeated runs. That's the only way to be sure, and I doubt the difference would be measurable if done accurately.
Example: If we want to "magazine race" take the current December issue of Car and Driver. The 2010 bone stock MS3 they tested on that day was slower in BOTH 0-60 and in the quarter mile by several tenths and several mph lower trap speed, compared to a first gen MS3 they had previously tested. They made this observation in the text of the article.
Does this mean that all 2010 MS3's will be similarly slow? No. The difference was within reasonable margin of error. We all also know that every engine and drive train component in a car is manufacured and assembled to certain tolerances. One car can have all the variations in tolerance favor developing a bit more power, while another car might have the cumulative effect of those tolerance variations favor a bit less power, even though they came off the assembly line back to back.
I do question the benefit/detriment decision making of Mazda to put those slots in the underhood part of the hood scoop, compared to the completely sealed previous design. This does allow some outside air to get into the engine bay where the airbox or an aftermarket intake could maybe get some cooler air. That would be a good thing. It also would allow some means for heat in the engine bay to have a way for some modest escape route, also a good thing. That would both tend to favor an advantage in performance --- maybe. But this is at the expense of heating up the air that is hitting the intercooler coils and thereby reducing intercooler effeciency. Those slots are actually pretty big.
See attached pix. Sorry for the low-res. Best I could find, but shows those slots in each side, too, not just in the back.
To what extent this tradeoff is an overall benefit or detriment, is unknown. Since both the gen 1 sealed ram air and the gen 2 external scoop appear to work very well, this may just be nothing more than an interesting academic exercise.
The big change does appear to be the difference in ECU tuning. Mazda could probably soften the delivery of power in first and second gear without actually adversely affecting performance because we can't use the available power in either gear right now without overpowering the tires. Full power is relatively useless in those gears unless you are on the dragstrip and running drag radials or outright slicks on front. My guess is that in the hands of a good driver who knows how to launch high powered fwd cars and who has practiced 60 ft times with both cars, that bone stock gen 1 and gen 2 cars will probably have virtually identical 60 fts. That's just a educated guess trying hard to master (poorly) 60 ft times in a gen 1 MS3.
Attachments
Last edited:
I bet the hood scoop ran into a problem of having too much flow, more than could pass through the TMIC. They had to give the excess air some place to flow so that there wasn't a huge build-up of pressure in the scoop. The ex-flow from the TMIC would be severely limited because of it's proximity to the engine block I would imagine.
Would that be the same reason that gen 1 sealed ram air to the TMIC has an "overflow" conduit over to the general area of the top of the battery box, just behind the stock airbox?
Makes sense to me. The pressure is acting over a very large area, so even 1-2PSI of pressure build-up could apply over a hundred pounds of force to the hood (1ft^2 @ 1psi = 144lbs of force) which is like an average-sized dude standing on the direct center of your hood. And I'm pretty sure the duct has a foot-print larger than 1sq foot.
The engineers probably designed the venting systems for the pressures and flows generated at 155mph as the worst-case scenario. They probably chose to sacrifice a little bit of performance at lower, saner speeds, for the potential problem of your hood ripping off at 155mph.
Just my educated guess though.
The engineers probably designed the venting systems for the pressures and flows generated at 155mph as the worst-case scenario. They probably chose to sacrifice a little bit of performance at lower, saner speeds, for the potential problem of your hood ripping off at 155mph.
Just my educated guess though.
