0-60

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.
 
jjac28 said:
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 ...
 
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.

MidnightDreamer said:
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.
 

New Threads and Articles

Back