I don't mind anything about it except the grille. I'm pretty sure there's going to be some aftermarket options to fix that. The drivetrain is not really changing. Max horsepower and torque stay the same, but it gets more mid-range torque. Still a 5-speed manual (which is stupid IMO) as well. New chassis, which is a shortened version of the Legacy's, and new double-wishbone suspension out back.
Scanned: MS3 Car n Driver Comparo
- Thread starter Donas64
- Start date
We Are Ninja
Member
- :
- 2006 Mazdaspeed 6 GT; 2004 Mazda 6 Wagon
The new WRX looks like a Chrysler and a Kia made sweet monkey love by the light of an Autozone sign.
Even the old bug-eyed WRX looks heaps better than this crap.
The MS3 is growing on me aesthetically.
Why do all new cars havet to pack on the pounds?? Geez. Both the Sentra and the MS3 packed on roughly several hundred pounds more than their successor...
Even the old bug-eyed WRX looks heaps better than this crap.
The MS3 is growing on me aesthetically.
Why do all new cars havet to pack on the pounds?? Geez. Both the Sentra and the MS3 packed on roughly several hundred pounds more than their successor...
Last edited:
We Are Ninja said:
The MS3 grew on me a lot aethesthetically as well. Maybe its because everything else looks so dang hideous. I mean next to the Spec-V the MS3 looks like a freakin ENZO!
As for the weight gain, we all need our heated AND cooled cupholders and quaz zone climate control and super sound deadening material.
mikeyb said:
Same here... kinda of glaringly obvious omissions... someone over on the srtforums commented that it was better that they left the Civic Si off as having it in the test would have assured that one of the slowest cars in the test would have taken #1
Thought that was funny... Si is a great car though. I bought my wife an '07 Si Coupe, and I enjoy driving it just about as much as I enjoy driving the MS3 that I just bought a couple weeks ago. They are both very fun cars with very different characters. I'm not 100% sure but it FEELS like the Si handles better on my favorite curvy road. You can tell it's a few hundred pounds lighter as well.
I think the Si would have probably taken first or if not second place had it been included in that test. The Cobalt would have been last as that car just blows... me and a friend test drove one and we both hated it. He wanted one pretty bad til he drove it then he drove the MS and now wants an MS and calls Cobalts Slowbalts
I think the Subie took last because it was the TR which is pretty stripped. Also, the interior on that car is very obviously of a lower quality, and the fact that even though the Subie has all wheel drive, it wore all season rubber vs. the sport tires on the other cars, and also has a softer suspension, so actually ended up performing worse in the handling and braking tests than most of the other cars, even though it was second fastest in acceleration. If you look at how they score the test, peformance is only one portion of it, and in other areas the Subie was just not very competitive. The 'true enthusiasts' know better though
Last edited:
SharkDiver
Member
- :
- Speed3
C&D didnt have the civic Si in there last comparo either.I wonder if honda just dont want there SI to be in the these comparos anymore since its so under powered.Well I guess I shouldnt say under powered but it seems slow.I know its close to 200Hp but it needs a turbo or something Im thinking.I dont know but Im not a fan of the civic anyways so maybe Im just bias.
Last edited:
Si is underrated. It tends to put 180+ to the wheels, when the older RSX type S's would always put mid 170's. Remember, Honda is now using the new SAE certified HP ratings... before that was put into effect, that same engine was making 210 hp. It's also relatively light at < 2900 lbs. It runs out of steam at higher speeds (like over 100mph) but in the first three gears it feels VERY quick once the hot cam comes on. People have run mid-high 14's in them bone stock... hardly what I'd call 'slow' though I guess with all this new competition it's all relative.
Which brings to mind another question, the MS3's 263 hp, is that using the new SAE method or the old 'regular' method? It's so hard to pin down what the MS3 really makes since dyno's are reporting such varied results and not enough people have taken them to the track to see what they trap. The new SAE rating almost always gives a lower number than the old system.
Which brings to mind another question, the MS3's 263 hp, is that using the new SAE method or the old 'regular' method? It's so hard to pin down what the MS3 really makes since dyno's are reporting such varied results and not enough people have taken them to the track to see what they trap. The new SAE rating almost always gives a lower number than the old system.
Last edited:
what i want to know........
i think the tires on my ms3 are too skinny and make hole shots hard to manage.
they mention the OUTRAGEOUS WIDE TIRES and BULGING BRIDGESTONES. did i miss something ?? since when are 215's consideres wide ?? thats what is on my taurus for cryin out loud !!
i think the tires on my ms3 are too skinny and make hole shots hard to manage.
they mention the OUTRAGEOUS WIDE TIRES and BULGING BRIDGESTONES. did i miss something ?? since when are 215's consideres wide ?? thats what is on my taurus for cryin out loud !!
SharkDiver
Member
- :
- Speed3
I was wondering the same thing..They may have been looking at them thru binoculars.tru-boost said:
215's are decently wide for a compact car. Hell the SRT-4 only had 205's, and the SRT-4 ACR had 215's.
I remember when common compacts like Civic's and Corolla's ran on 14" wheels and like 185 width rubber... compared to that, 215's are monstrous
but yeah, these days, 215's are 'standard'.
Saying they are on a Taurus though... Taurus is a little bit bigger so the ratio is different.
I remember when common compacts like Civic's and Corolla's ran on 14" wheels and like 185 width rubber... compared to that, 215's are monstrous
but yeah, these days, 215's are 'standard'. Saying they are on a Taurus though... Taurus is a little bit bigger so the ratio is different.
Another comparo by Road and Track!!
1. MS3
2. GTI
3. Civic Si (4-door!)
4. Mini Cooper S
5. Sentra SE-R
No WRX
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=36&article_id=5244
1. MS3
2. GTI
3. Civic Si (4-door!)
4. Mini Cooper S
5. Sentra SE-R
No WRX
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=36&article_id=5244
neit_jnf said:
When I read that comparo at the bookshop, I found it funny that the whole tone favored the GTI but the MS3 still won. The editors lauded the GTI as refined and elegant and fun with a broad torque curve etc but the MS3 seems to have won by sheer brute force.
Something tells me if the GTI had even 240 ponies instead of 200, it would be winning these comparos. The MS3's sheer numbers prove to impressive to ignore.
If you read comparos in british mags (they are afterall the land where the hot-hatch is king), you'll notice for the most part the MS3 does not fare well in comparoes because they say it is overpowered while the GTI has accolades reigned down upon it.
Given the choice between the two I'd take the MS3 but if the GTI had more power, it would make things very hard indeed.
- :
- 2006 Infiniti M
gti is just so ugly tho
yeah I noticed that as well, most of the writers said they personally would take the GTI, but the MS3 came out overall winner and scored very well in the categories it did not win. In all performance testing (accel, brake, handling) it came out well ahead of all the other cars.
Whatever, I definatley have no regrets. Note, the GTI in that comparo is a 4-door, and was optioned to the tune of $29,000.
I also do NOT trust VW reliability these days.
Whatever, I definatley have no regrets. Note, the GTI in that comparo is a 4-door, and was optioned to the tune of $29,000.
I also do NOT trust VW reliability these days.
New Threads and Articles
-
-
For Sale Got tons of extra parts for mazda protege protege5 engine 2trans- By JP mp5 VA
- Replies: 0
-