0-60

[MidnightDreamer]

Does anyone know the 0-60 times on the new Mazda 3? for both the 2.0 and 2.3l versions. It's kinda disapointing to hear that the car will only be 160hp for the 2.3 version. They shoulda made it 170... And what's with the torque difference... Can anyone explain to me why the bigger engine has less torque? and why the smaller one has so much more? Won't that make the car's acceleration times almost identical? Right right? Cuz the 2.3 will be heavier, and less torque, while the 2.0 will be lighter with more toque,,,,

 

[flat_black]

Torque has a lot to do with the bore and stroke numbers. To increase displacement you either a) increase bore, or b) increase stroke. =) Chances are the 160hp 2.3 just has a less-than-square bore/stroke.

Edmunds had a review of the 3, but with no times or anything:

http://www.edmunds.com/future/2004/...l?tid=edmunds.f.mmindex.content.num1.4.mazda*

Were I to wager a guess, the 2.0 probably runs a 8.5 or so 0-60, and the 2.3 probably clocks in around 8.2. Who knows, though. =) I'm just guessing.

 

[Captain KRM P5]

Road and Track concurs with your estimates with thier own, uh, estimates

 

[wongpres]

Does anyone know the 0-60 times on the new Mazda 3? for both the 2.0 and 2.3l versions. It's kinda disapointing to hear that the car will only be 160hp for the 2.3 version. They shoulda made it 170... And what's with the torque difference... Can anyone explain to me why the bigger engine has less torque? and why the smaller one has so much more? Won't that make the car's acceleration times almost identical? Right right? Cuz the 2.3 will be heavier, and less torque, while the 2.0 will be lighter with more toque,,,,

Mazda Canada's website just made a mistake with the numbers (actually there are quite a number of errors on their new website). The Mazda3 2.3l has 160hp and 150lb-ft

 

[MidnightDreamer]

Yea, that sounds more right... I was wonderin how a smaller displacement engine could produce more torque than a larger one...

 

[Alantje]

0-60 for europe 2.0 150 hp version = 9 .0 sec

 

[flat_black]

Yea, that sounds more right... I was wonderin how a smaller displacement engine could produce more torque than a larger one...

Have Honda make it, with their wierd bore to stroke ratios. =)

 

[Micah]

yeah, but look at the civic, I thought their engines were all HP and no Torque.

 

[flat_black]

I meant have Honda make the bigger engine. Hehee. Just messing around. =)

 

[MidnightDreamer]

LOL, yea... But Honda makes good engines... VTEC is a little overrated, but even 127hp Si's are fast... Speaking of which, I've never raced one yet, but I'm sure the VTEC would kick in at some point and leave me trailing behind....

 

[Mazda3]

The times you are quoting are too slow!!!

Has anyone here driven the 2.3L Mazda6 with 5spd?
It moves along pretty good.
Car and Driver tested it 0-60 in 7.8 1/4 mile 16.3

The Mazda3 is 350lbs lighter, look for 0-60 times of 7.5 with a good driver. Should dip into the high 15's in the 1/4. I will be very suprised if it can't beat a SE-R.

 

[jjac28]

0-60 for europe 2.0 150 hp version = 9 .0 sec

mazdas are not known for making quick 0-60 cars, instead they make excellent handling cars.
mp5 might run parallel with the mazda3 from 0 to 60.

 

[MidnightDreamer]

There is no way the M3 would run parallel to a P5....
The FS-DE is way outdated... It has no form of variable valve timing, and it's old.... almost 13years old... 130hp vs. 150hp? No contest... Esp. since the M3 is lighter, and the engine is more modernized...

Thanks to Mazda3 for the info!

 

[MidnightDreamer]

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... Plus it seems like there's a lot of room for mods on this engine... Starting from a higher displacement 160hp engine leaves for a pretty high performance potential. Aftermarket should be pretty good in a while too. Wouldn't all the stuff for the Mazda 6's 2.3l work for the M3's 2.3l as well? They're the same engine right?

Just wish i could afford one lol...

 

[jjac28]

There is no way the M3 would run parallel to a P5....
The FS-DE is way outdated... It has no form of variable valve timing, and it's old.... almost 13years old... 130hp vs. 150hp? No contest... Esp. since the M3 is lighter, and the engine is more modernized...

Thanks to Mazda3 for the info!

i wish someone would have told me that when i was buying my mp5

an old engine is no good

 

[MidnightDreamer]

Hold on a sec, I wasn't bashing on the FS-DE, it's an awesome engine... It could stand to be 20 or 30 horses stronger, but 130 is enought for getting around town... It's a really reliable engine as well, which explains why it has been in use for so long... But overall, it's a slow engine and that's why i want a Mazda 3... If there was a way I could pop a new M3's 2.3l into my Protege as is, I would be the happiest person in the world...

 

[Alantje]

mazdas are not known for making quick 0-60 cars, instead they make excellent handling cars.
mp5 might run parallel with the mazda3 from 0 to 60.

well those 9 secs are specs from mazda itself........ they claim 9 sec from 0-100 km/h 2.0 150 HP

the p5 131HP got the specs like 9.7 from 0-100km/h

i think the 2.3 160HP will be 8.5s from 0-100

 

[dugrant153]

how does the 9 seconds from the 2.0L compare to the other cars in the same class? (Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Suzuki Aerio, etc.)

 

[Alantje]

how does the 9 seconds from the 2.0L compare to the other cars in the same class? (Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Suzuki Aerio, etc.)

specs corolla 8.4secs for the 192 hp version`10.2s for 110hp
civic type r 200hp 6.8secs 110hp 10.2

mazda3 105 hp version `11sec

 

[jjac28]

well those 9 secs are specs from mazda itself........ they claim 9 sec from 0-100 km/h 2.0 150 HP

the p5 131HP got the specs like 9.7 from 0-100km/h

i think the 2.3 160HP will be 8.5s from 0-100

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. (8.6sec to 0-60)