0-60 MPH time for the 2.5L sedan?

[concept]

And how does that compare to your RX8? (I've owned 4 RXs of various models, over the years - love the smoothness.)

I almost had the opportunity to test drive the 3 at the San Diego Auto Show, but unbeknownst to me and the Mazda reps, inside, test-driving didn't happen until day 2 of the show. One of these days.......

 

[Chibana]

I think in around-town driving the mid-range torque of the 2.5L Mazda3 trumps the RX-8, but I can feel that at high RPM the RX-8 is faster than the Mazda3 in all situations. 0-60mph times for the RX-8 in "good" magazines for the Series II were around 6.3s (I think that was C&D's time), but you have to drive it like you stole it to get near that number. The Mazda3's top speed is almost as high, too. 139mph (using calculations based on the tested top speed of the 2.0L Mazda3) vs. 143mph for the RX-8. I think the quarter mile trap speed of the Series II RX-8 was around 99 mph with a time in the high 14s, so it pulls away a bit at higher speeds. Not very big differences.

The RX-8 isn't a particular fast car, especially by today's standards. When it was first released, it was at least in the same ballpark as most of its competition, but the competition has gotten much faster over the years. Not so with the RX-8. Thankfully, I knew that before buying it, and didn't buy it for straight line speed. I bought it because I fell in love with it when it was released, I love the rotary engine, I think it's sex on wheels, and it's one of the best handling cars on the road. Sometimes when I would not have driven the RX-8 in a while I would start thinking that my new Mazda3 was plenty fun enough, but then I'd drive the RX-8 and think, "Holy s***, this is amazing."

 

[concept]

Thanks for the comparo. My first car was a used 74 RX4 with louvers on the back window, custom, built-in speakers in the back seat, and a mirror strip at the top of the windshield that showed "MAZDA" to the driver of the car in front who looked at my car in their rearview mirror. I loved that car but plowed it into a cement wall while racing a BMW 2002tii.

 

[MZ3Rx7]

Thanks for the comparo. My first car was a used 74 RX4 with louvers on the back window, custom, built-in speakers in the back seat, and a mirror strip at the top of the windshield that showed "MAZDA" to the driver of the car in front who looked at my car in their rearview mirror. I loved that car but plowed it into a cement wall while racing a BMW 2002tii.

I've owned 3 FC's (one turboII and two series 5 n/a's) and an FD. There is nothing in the world like the feel of a rotary motor, I remember the first time I was brave enough to take my first car (an n/a) into the deep end of the tach. The way they feel and almost beg to be thrown around this corner and that. The first time I drove my 2.5 Touring it reminded me of my turboII. SMOOTH and linear, it just keeps pulling more the deeper you take it. Given I havent taken it too far or too hard, and that reminds me of being young, when I bought my first rx7. Its a car that I feel I could easily push way past my current (with this car comfort zone)... by this I mean I feel I havent even come close to pushing this car and I am already impressed.

that being said, it is not the same as sitting in the cockpit of an FD and feeling those turbos pull you through corners like a shuttle taking off.

I am thoroughly impressed with the transmission in this car and I immediately remember and feel that spirit only Mazda has ever given me.

 

[concept]

I agree. Some were faster than others, even as the same model. The dealership I bought most of my Rxs from had a loaner Rx3 that was exceptionally fast. It felt like it had cam that kicked in at 5000 RPM.
I am anxious to test-drive a 2.5L 3. My point of reference would be my MX6 GT. It has a stuttering issue at times but when it boosts to 10-12 psi, it's fairly quick. It's auto tranny always impressed me; it would accelerate with just a small gas pedal movement. Sadly, this may be the last year I keep it.

 

[mz3_driver]

What I find odd (or interesting) is that the 2.0L best time was about 16.1 in the 1/4 mile with a manual transmission, trapping about 88 mph. This seems consistent with existing data for other cars/models with similar weight and HP. No problems there, though I was hoping it would break into 15s (15.9).

The 2.5L adds 30 HP, and adds extra weight compared to the 2.0. Having said that, Motorweek managed to squeeze 95 mph trap speed? That's 7 mph faster, and there is no way 30HP will add 7 mph. Something does not add up here.

 

[CXVille]

What I find odd (or interesting) is that the 2.0L best time was about 16.1 in the 1/4 mile with a manual transmission, trapping about 88 mph. This seems consistent with existing data for other cars/models with similar weight and HP. No problems there, though I was hoping it would break into 15s (15.9).

The 2.5L adds 30 HP, and adds extra weight compared to the 2.0. Having said that, Motorweek managed to squeeze 95 mph trap speed? That's 7 mph faster, and there is no way 30HP will add 7 mph. Something does not add up here.

The torque peak on the 2.5 is lower rpm and the curve is flatter. That makes the difference to get it moving.

 

[Chibana]

The numbers look right to me, as well. I always thought the acceleration times for the 2.0L seemed a little slow, if anything. It should be comparable to the Focus, but the quickest times for 0-60 I read for my 2012 Titanium with the dual-clutch was 7.6s. And as the other people pointed out, the 2.5L makes quite a bit more torque, and I don't think it weighs much more.

 

[mz3_driver]

Well good for Mazda, of course I'm happy with such a good ET and trap speed. But stuff still doesn't add up

I really do not intend to start another HP vs TQ debate, I know what each one means and their relationship quite well. Still, it is mighty high for the 2.5L in the Mazda3 to trap 95 mph. If you look at Mazda6, manual or auto, and Car & Driver's test results, it trapped 90 and 91 mph. This is consistent with the engine output and Mazda6 weight.

So where did the 4-5 mph come from in the Mazda3? 2.5 Mazda3 auto weighs 160 lbs less than 2.5 Mazda6 manual.

and yes, 2.5L is about 60 kg heavier than 2.0L, which is about 130 lbs. The weight difference between a manual 2.0 and auto 2.5 is 200 lbs (90 kg).

 

[mz3_driver]

The Mazda 6 weighs almost 8% more than the Mazda 3 2.5L. That's a pretty large difference and would easily account for the 4 mph better result. That's where it comes from. You need to do the math and % difference is more important than absolute weight difference which can be misleading to your mind...

You're ignoring that the weight difference between 2.0 manual and 2.5 auto in Mazda3 is greater than the difference between Mazda6 and Mazda3.

In addition, we don't know how the shift points are programmed. It could be that the Mazda 6 is setup a little more for mpg than performance given it's use. People buy the hatch more for sport and the 6 more for family. It's a bit more complicated than it seems.

When you floor the car, there is only one shift point - maximum acceleration. Plus, Mazda6 manual and auto both deliver similar trap speed (90 and 91 mph) as per C&D testing.

All I'm saying is that the numbers from Motorweek don't agree with the numbers from C&D. Numbers from C&D make sense, everything taken into account.

It could be they're using different testing methods. Some years ago when G-Tech was popular, its numbers did not agree with track numbers since it uses a different way of measuring time and trap speed.

 

[mz3_driver]

Actually, the weight difference is about the same, or slightly less, between the MT and 2.5 AT. And it is too simplistic to say there is only one shift point. Whenever you accelerate with a 6-speed transmission you will have to change gears.

Are the numbers correct? Are the methods and measurements done the same way? We don't know. But I can tell you from personal experience that there is a much large difference in power from a driver's perspective as I have driven both. It ain't even close...

I am waiting to see some more confirmations of this high trap speed. I have driven both, and I agree, the 2.5 is faster, but it doesn't feel 95 mph fast to me.

 

[nitsuj]

What about drag? Does someone have the drag coefficients for each of the 2014 models for the 3 and the 6?

 

[ceric]

For Cd of Mazda3, sedan=0.255. Hatch=0.27.

 

[CXVille]

What about drag? Does someone have the drag coefficients for each of the 2014 models for the 3 and the 6?

Drag won't make much difference at those speeds. While it might make some difference, it would be very small.

 

[ceric]

At highway speed, every drop of 0.03 Cd improves MPG by 1.

 

[concept]

For Cd of Mazda3, sedan=0.255. Hatch=0.27.

By comparison, the Prius Cd is 0.25.

 

[CXVille]

At highway speed, every drop of 0.03 Cd improves MPG by 1.

Here we are talking acceleration. The drag coefficient won't come into play until 45-50 mph, or higher. So it might impact 1/4 mile trap speed at 85 mph, but not really time. I doubt 0.03 difference in Cd would impact 0-60 at all. It would be a bigger difference in engines and launch.

 

[Chibana]

I don't see a conspiracy here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "i" 2.0L automatic doesn't feature the Sport mode, no? I'd almost bet my RX-8 that the Sport mode auto on the 2.5L will accelerate faster than any manual they ever manage to put into it. If my 2012 Focus Titanium can hit 60 in 7.6, I don't see 6.9s as unreasonable for the much torque-ier Mazda3s. _Car & Driver's_ 0-60 time was 7.2s, and that was on a track they described as slippery. Do you really think Mazda paid MotorWeek to cook the numbers? Come on.

 

[concept]

My best guess is 6.9-7.0 seconds - not bad at all.

 

[mz3_driver]

I don't see a conspiracy here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "i" 2.0L automatic doesn't feature the Sport mode, no? I'd almost bet my RX-8 that the Sport mode auto on the 2.5L will accelerate faster than any manual they ever manage to put into it. If my 2012 Focus Titanium can hit 60 in 7.6, I don't see 6.9s as unreasonable for the much torque-ier Mazda3s. _Car & Driver's_ 0-60 time was 7.2s, and that was on a track they described as slippery. Do you really think Mazda paid MotorWeek to cook the numbers? Come on.

I'm actually talking about 1/4 mile trap speed and times. It is inconsistent with others who tested the car. And Motorweek logged 6.6 seconds to 60 mph.

0-60 mph can be influenced by gearing, but trap speed is one of the best indicators of the car's weight to power ratio. 95 mph does not seem realistic, considering every other car mag tested the same engine as trapping 90 or 91 mph (whether in another Mazda3 2.5, or Mazda6 2.5 auto or Mazda6 2.5 manual). You dont just magically gain or lose 20-30 HP that's responsible for the 4 mph difference.

Also, 95 mph is enough to put the car into high 14s, not 15.2 seconds as Motorweek tested.

Like I said before, Civic Si with 200 HP traps 95 mph at clocks the 1/4 mile in 14.6 or 14.7 seconds.

So I don't know what's going on with Motorweek's numbers or their testing methods. Not advocating a conspiracy here, more of what gives.

Consider the fact that many independent reviewers also clocked the 2.5 Mazda3 model at over 8 seconds in 0-60. That is a discrepancy that is simply too great.