COBB Tuning's initial test results and driving impressions for the 2007 MAZDASPEED 3

[Christian.]

http://www.cobbforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32452

I hope I posted this in the correct forum. I will be happy to move it or ask for it to be moved if this is not the correct area. This is a more technical report so this seemed more appropriate.

Take care,
Christian.

 

[CTGrey02]

Good read. You mentioned that the dyno was running in AWD mode... was that causing parasitic loss having to power both rollers? The A/F ratio on that car is rediculously low. Can't wait to see how much more power comes from leaning it out to a more reasonable level.

 

[Donas64]

Unless I'm misreading something, Mazda WAAAY overrated the HP number. I'm no expert but 212 to the wheels on a car rated at 268 hp. That seems like a lot of drivetrain loss to me and there is no AWD system to blame the huge losses on. The torque number is quite nice though.

 

[vindication]

this is a mustang dyno(plus some more parasitic loss from all rollers running). lower whp number. it is more real world. the other ones are used for penis inflating

 

[Refonbass]

I'm thinking the somewhat low hp numbers here are due to two factors, 1. They are located in a high altitude setting. 2. Mustang Load bearing dynos typically read lower than dynojets or other non-loading dynamometers. As to which one is more accurate, that is a subject that has been argued by tuners for quite a while. Regardless I think most will agree that when dynoing the same car back to back on a Dynojet and then on a Mustang, the dynojet will almost always read higher hp numbers.

 

[CTGrey02]

I'm a dyno jet ***** myself, however, these are the first charts I've seen that really show whats going on with stock tuning and show the potential for gains just from a reflash. Peak numbers dont really matter, using those charts as a baseline will still show positive performance gains when checking out new mods. SAE Correction should have offset some of the loss from altitude.. thats not to say the tune wasn't adjusting boost to compensate for the thinner air.

 

[Refonbass]

which I think it was, I thought I remembered reading somewhere in the article where boost numbers were falling short of the claimed stock boost levels.

 

[boostdog]

very interesting...alot of people need to read this..

 

[seanw]

I'm a dyno jet ***** myself, however, these are the first charts I've seen that really show whats going on with stock tuning and show the potential for gains just from a reflash. Peak numbers dont really matter, using those charts as a baseline will still show positive performance gains when checking out new mods. SAE Correction should have offset some of the loss from altitude.. thats not to say the tune wasn't adjusting boost to compensate for the thinner air.

.

What do you, think, CTG, first mod? Might get 20-25 with little or no fuss! If only it weren't for the little piece of paper known as a warranty.

 

[shark77]

Unless I'm misreading something, Mazda WAAAY overrated the HP number. I'm no expert but 212 to the wheels on a car rated at 268 hp. That seems like a lot of drivetrain loss to me and there is no AWD system to blame the huge losses on. The torque number is quite nice though.

It is about on target. Stock STi's dyno around 215-220whp on mustangs. So figuring that the STi has some more drivetrain loss, I would say that a 212whp pull for a FWD car on a mustang is about right for a claimed 263hp crank figure.

 

[CTGrey02]

99-04 Mustangs put down about 225 stock on a dyno jet. 05+ mustangs put down about 20 more than that. Problem there is there's hardly any stock ones with their rediculous aftermarket.

Sean - I'll probably just slap a CAI on there for some more audible feedback and call it a day. Probably just have Mazda install it prior to delivery so the work and car are still covered by the warranty. I'd hope by May/June when I finally pay off the Mustang that MazdaSpeed has upgrades available. Soon as a hand held flasher is out I'll play with the tune a bit on the dyno to lean it out, but other than that, it's staying stock. I already have a 400 whp toy to whip around, I just want something fast enough for rush hour merging to get around all the idiots. And CT has lots of them, lol

 

[Christian.]

Good read. You mentioned that the dyno was running in AWD mode... was that causing parasitic loss having to power both rollers? The A/F ratio on that car is rediculously low. Can't wait to see how much more power comes from leaning it out to a more reasonable level.

Just so everyone has a better understanding as to how the vehicle is loaded in 2WD mode vs. AWD mode. The static weight of one set of rollers while in 2WD mode is ~2000 lbs., which is considerably less that the static weight of the MAZDASPEED 3. On the other hand, the static weight of both sets of rollers (~3600 lbs.) while in AWD mode is much closer to the static weight of the vehicle with driver. We have tuned all types of vehicles for several years now and we have found that the Mustang chassis dyno can properly load vehicles in 2WD mode and AWD mode. The fact that these vehicles are getting so advanced that they can detect wheel spin through their individual wheel speed sensors forces us to run them in AWD mode just so we can measure exactly what the vehicles were engineered to do on the street.

Take care,
Christian.

 

[dkswim]

yet another subscribed.

 

[Munnugles]

talk about brining back the dead back... 2006... wow...

 

[Super Unique]

 

[Bravnik]

ROFL - I just noticed the 2006 date. WOW