'10 MS3 on PBS' "Motorweek" this week

[camrycev6]

I guess I figured they would have made several runs under similar conditions, then used the averages. One time runs without considering the track conditions and weather are useless comparisons. They shouldn't have made one if that was the case.

 

[zx2man]

full second? that would mean 6.2. I did not see the motorweek review on the first gen,if so yeah 1 second..crazy if you think about it..but not crazy if you read alot of other reviews...Ive seen many 5.4-5.8 0-60 mph times on this car...Now TRUE thats still no 5.2..and that is the fastest time I have seen on the ms3..But if the 1st gen has been fully capable of "mid 5's" 0-60 time..then you take a 2010 which has fatter 225 tires..a upgraded traction control system and a nice brand new sticky roadcourse to drive on..then to me..the 5.2 is starting to look very possible and obvoiusly so since motorweek did post the time and in all the years ive been watching them they have never striked me as liars...interesting indeed

 

[oaklandopen]

i think the real factor in the different times in different mags or shows really comes down to the track and weather. it's never just gonna be some joe schmo that hops in the car and tries to get the best time on the first try, it's gonna be a professional that tries to get a good time out of multiple attempts.

even a regular person who isnt a professional driver can improve a 0-60 time in a manual car. all they have to do is try bunch of times through trial and error (ie launching from different rpms, clutch-play, throttle-play, etc).

but factors like a 50 degree difference in blacktop temps is uncontrollable and there is really no way to improve upon it. a hot blacktop is gonna get you better 0-60 than a cold one, and colder air is gonna get you better 1/4 mile times than hot air, etc

so basically i think the important thing to question (instead of saying one mag has crappy drivers or whatever) is where they are testing and how the conditions are. normally a show like motorweek will have a little blurb about their track conditions while showing the car sprinting from a stop, but sometimes you don't get the conditions in the mags or online articles.

 

[zx2man]

i think the real factor in the different times in different mags or shows really comes down to the track and weather. it's never just gonna be some joe schmo that hops in the car and tries to get the best time on the first try, it's gonna be a professional that tries to get a good time out of multiple attempts.

even a regular person who isnt a professional driver can improve a 0-60 time in a manual car. all they have to do is try bunch of times through trial and error (ie launching from different rpms, clutch-play, throttle-play, etc).

but factors like a 50 degree difference in blacktop temps is uncontrollable and there is really no way to improve upon it. a hot blacktop is gonna get you better 0-60 than a cold one, and colder air is gonna get you better 1/4 mile times than hot air, etc

so basically i think the important thing to question (instead of saying one mag has crappy drivers or whatever) is where they are testing and how the conditions are. normally a show like motorweek will have a little blurb about their track conditions while showing the car sprinting from a stop, but sometimes you don't get the conditions in the mags or online articles.

Pretty much knocked it on the head right there. little changes like driver-road surface-temps can make dramatic changes. I will say being a person who has test droven a 2010 ms3..it doesnt feel like a fwd...and it sticks to the road better than my 1st gen..the traction is there from the start and the cornering is very execeptional. That being said..regardles of the times..the ms3 platform is one amazing car..and soo worth the money. I do believe though if Mazda does make a 3rd gen..they either need to go awd or at the very least utilize Ford's Revoknuckle system.

 

[BillTheCat]

I think one thing some folks may not be considering when they read that the newly resurfaced track had a lot to do with the improved times is that it's not about the smoothness or roughness of the surface. It's about the stickiness of it. Old asphalt dries out, making it less tacky. New asphalt is still very "moist" with oil, making it a lot stickier, which aids greatly in getting & keeping grip. You can launch a lot harder on new asphalt. Even if the old grey asphalt was flawless in its surface condition (even, uncracked, etc.) a resurface will speed up launch & acceleration by providing better grip.

So add the improved track conditions to slight performance improvements, and maybe a slightly more aggressive test driver (no way to tell) for the 2010, and I could see a full second improvement. But it would have to be a perfect storm of a situation, which is pretty much my theory on that.