What cars can the MS3 run with?
- Thread starter SpeedWorld
- Start date
In my second paragraph I was justifying the cost of the kit for the VW.
Look at the cost of the Corvette TT kit and check the ratio of hp and tq percentage gained : dollar. Taking an engine and almost doubling it's power is pretty solid.
I can't really agree on the comparison stock for stock - to make 250hp N/A is a bit more intense than F/I - then there is the DSG gearbox, braking distance of 108ft (60-0), and skidpad of .89. They are solid built and designed cars. Check this article:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/8413/volkswagen-r32.html
This is written before the car was given a DSG. The short summary of the article is that this is the gentlemans version of the boy racer car. The r32 is a car you don't have to worry about Johnny Law/Jimmy Ricer/Jackie Racer messing with you over. You can drive it tame, or you can take it out for a fun run. The tuning potential of the car is huge. (Granted, you can say the same thing about the EVO, and marginally the STI.) But they don't have the DSG(perfectly timed computer controlled shifts are nice - personally I prefer to "row my own", but I have alot of respect for the DSG gearbox). Yes, the r32 is a little slower - but the overall experience of the car is sound. The STI is a little slower than the EVO, has less tuning potential than the EVO(barring the new EVO X with it's MIVEC - can't wait to see how that goes), but the STI and EVO are constantly considered the benchmark for econo-rockets.
Did I read this wrong? I thought you were disparaging the $7k kit. If I read that wrong - please accept my apologies in advance, and I'll thank you in advance for your explanation.you-MS3_ZOOM said:
Look at the cost of the Corvette TT kit and check the ratio of hp and tq percentage gained : dollar. Taking an engine and almost doubling it's power is pretty solid.
I can't really agree on the comparison stock for stock - to make 250hp N/A is a bit more intense than F/I - then there is the DSG gearbox, braking distance of 108ft (60-0), and skidpad of .89. They are solid built and designed cars. Check this article:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/8413/volkswagen-r32.html
This is written before the car was given a DSG. The short summary of the article is that this is the gentlemans version of the boy racer car. The r32 is a car you don't have to worry about Johnny Law/Jimmy Ricer/Jackie Racer messing with you over. You can drive it tame, or you can take it out for a fun run. The tuning potential of the car is huge. (Granted, you can say the same thing about the EVO, and marginally the STI.) But they don't have the DSG(perfectly timed computer controlled shifts are nice - personally I prefer to "row my own", but I have alot of respect for the DSG gearbox). Yes, the r32 is a little slower - but the overall experience of the car is sound. The STI is a little slower than the EVO, has less tuning potential than the EVO(barring the new EVO X with it's MIVEC - can't wait to see how that goes), but the STI and EVO are constantly considered the benchmark for econo-rockets.
MX6toMS3 said:I thought the coolest thing was that it could keep up with (or beat!) my boss's 2005 BMW M3.
The MS3 has less HP, but more torque, and about the same 1/4 mile time.
When I get my MS3, maybe I'll get to find out
And all for half the price.
Now that's whats up. Running with some of these more expensive cars handing them their hat... That was my primary reason for purchasing this car.
M3_Zoom said:
lmao here we go again. why is everone so enamored with straight line speed? I have a friend who's so obsessed with what cars do in a 0-60 it's actually quite pathetic. Anywayz, believe it or not, there ARE other reasons to buy a car.
A base 3 series probably costs about the same (or more) as an STI or EVO. Does THAT driver expect it to compete with those cars "right out of the box"? My point is, some people value other things more (like fit & finish, prestige factor, upgradability, etc.) more than how many seconds C&D was able to get the car up to 60 under perfect conditions. That test is such BS to begin with because who in their right mind is doing burnouts on a regular basis? I think I did it once... just for the sake of it... within the past 4 years of owning my MSP. Since I obviously planned on keeping it a while, I didn't feel like sending her to an early grave. A more 'practical' test for people to consider would be the 10-50 or whatever types... Since those are what most people are doing on a fairly regular basis.
But I digress.... For what it's worth, I hate the last gen R32. Mainly because I can't stand the body style. I dig the styling of the new version (bout time VW got it right) so hopefully the new one will be a winner.
You can double the HP on a 250 HP car but as a general rule they wont end up performing like a car with 500 HP stock - 0-60 of course... but unless you upgrade suspension, brakes, cooling, in some cases gearbox these modded beasts wont show as well in lap times.. for the street their reliability long term will be compromised as well....
Im still amazed this thread is going.. and going... and going...
Im still amazed this thread is going.. and going... and going...
I was the first turbo A/T 2002 Protege - also the first blown engine cuz I got greedy
I'm sorry, but your argument is flawed. Unless I am reading that wrong, but it sounds like you are making the assumption that someone who chooses to upgrade their engines performance is not going to invest in other areas(braking, suspension) as well. However, I definitely agree with you on the reliability factor being compromised.
Yes, I'm sure some people just do the engine(I'd call them tools, or strapped for cash), and hey - if that's all they want, fine. But many people choose to work their way around the car with upgrades. Hell, the first thing I did on my WRX was the brakes, followed by flashing to stage 1, then intake piping and uppipe, then TBE and pulley and engine/trans mounts and flashing to stage 2, then suspension - c/o's rear bar and endlinks, then turbo and fuel(injectors/pump) - flashed to 2.5. I'm probably missing a few steps in there. My point is some people enjoy modding. Had I started with an STI/EVO - I'd be leaving my car in the dust with the same money invested. But - alot of people that I find on the roads haven't done much to their cars - I can't even begin to count how many people I've pulled on with stock(and stockish) STI/EVO. Seems most people just do Intake/Exhaust mods and never do anything about tuning. I couldn't begin to count how many people I've seen with CAI/BOV(OMG!)/Catback/ and a set of springs- who think their car is done. In many cases the CAI/BOV can actually cause issues with MAF readings, and while a CBE can add a little bit of power, they are mostly noisemakers. Tuning is key. If you can't do a standalone, piggybacks work - just be damned sure you've got it right. When the factory ECU sees something the piggyback is supposed to be covering - the ECU will try to correct - and that usually turns into a problem.
I am looking forward to playing with a MS3, I'm expecting a better run than the MS6. Both are nice cars, but the MS6 is a bit more upscale than racer. My friend Sean has one and it's REALLY nice. My WRX is a loud ass rattlebox compared to his car. One of my co-workers is currently deciding between a used 350Z or a new MS3. I brought my Z to work and let him drive it and he loved it, but I told him to go drive the MS3 before he makes up his mind. I like the MS3, hell I want to drive it myself. Drove the Z yesterday so he could check it out, but I need to get more miles on my new clutch in the WRX so I'll likely be driving that for the next few days.
Oh and here is something that you wouldn't expect. I'm starting to actually prefer driving the Z in the rain. It's stock, has traction control, and is just easier to drive compared to the WRX which has a nasty habit of breaking the tires loose. That and in a common situation where one side of the car finds it's way into a long puddle, I think it's better to have RWD than AWD. Yes the AWD recovers better, but the RWD doesn't pull as hard towards the puddle. I love both my cars, and honestly don't drive either as hard as I could. I'd rather go from a 20-30mph roll than from a dig. My WRX has the notoriously weak trans by reputation, though I've never had a problem with it.
And now I'm just rambling. Time for me to shower and head to work.
Mocoso said:
I'm sorry, but your argument is flawed. Unless I am reading that wrong, but it sounds like you are making the assumption that someone who chooses to upgrade their engines performance is not going to invest in other areas(braking, suspension) as well. However, I definitely agree with you on the reliability factor being compromised.
Yes, I'm sure some people just do the engine(I'd call them tools, or strapped for cash), and hey - if that's all they want, fine. But many people choose to work their way around the car with upgrades. Hell, the first thing I did on my WRX was the brakes, followed by flashing to stage 1, then intake piping and uppipe, then TBE and pulley and engine/trans mounts and flashing to stage 2, then suspension - c/o's rear bar and endlinks, then turbo and fuel(injectors/pump) - flashed to 2.5. I'm probably missing a few steps in there. My point is some people enjoy modding. Had I started with an STI/EVO - I'd be leaving my car in the dust with the same money invested. But - alot of people that I find on the roads haven't done much to their cars - I can't even begin to count how many people I've pulled on with stock(and stockish) STI/EVO. Seems most people just do Intake/Exhaust mods and never do anything about tuning. I couldn't begin to count how many people I've seen with CAI/BOV(OMG!)/Catback/ and a set of springs- who think their car is done. In many cases the CAI/BOV can actually cause issues with MAF readings, and while a CBE can add a little bit of power, they are mostly noisemakers. Tuning is key. If you can't do a standalone, piggybacks work - just be damned sure you've got it right. When the factory ECU sees something the piggyback is supposed to be covering - the ECU will try to correct - and that usually turns into a problem.
I am looking forward to playing with a MS3, I'm expecting a better run than the MS6. Both are nice cars, but the MS6 is a bit more upscale than racer. My friend Sean has one and it's REALLY nice. My WRX is a loud ass rattlebox compared to his car. One of my co-workers is currently deciding between a used 350Z or a new MS3. I brought my Z to work and let him drive it and he loved it, but I told him to go drive the MS3 before he makes up his mind. I like the MS3, hell I want to drive it myself. Drove the Z yesterday so he could check it out, but I need to get more miles on my new clutch in the WRX so I'll likely be driving that for the next few days.
Oh and here is something that you wouldn't expect. I'm starting to actually prefer driving the Z in the rain. It's stock, has traction control, and is just easier to drive compared to the WRX which has a nasty habit of breaking the tires loose. That and in a common situation where one side of the car finds it's way into a long puddle, I think it's better to have RWD than AWD. Yes the AWD recovers better, but the RWD doesn't pull as hard towards the puddle. I love both my cars, and honestly don't drive either as hard as I could. I'd rather go from a 20-30mph roll than from a dig. My WRX has the notoriously weak trans by reputation, though I've never had a problem with it.
And now I'm just rambling. Time for me to shower and head to work.
Last edited:
Karma_hunden
Member
- :
- '04 protege, then '05 mazda 3i, then '06 MS6 GT, now '10 RX8 R3
Micah said:
Cool, sorry, didnt see the sig, it doesnt show up when you arent logged in, i logged when i hit reply to your post. Still wouldve ask cuz you cant tell whether the time is from the Z or the WRX. But yeah, its hard, there are days where you CANNOT get passed mid 13s and there are days when you are hitting the 12s easy. Just depends.
Ya need to work on that 60ft...2.5 for an AWD WRX is nasty. Im sure you can hit low 13s at least.
I personally, am starting to like more RWD. Nobody races you from a dig. AWD is awesome but I think it just puts too much strain on the tranny since you cant peel off. We had a bad experience yesterday at the track with the AWD. Let just say we had one FWD Speed6 at the end of the night. The good thing is, that we got to ride 80 miles on top of a flat bed IN the car! totally awesome and illegal. We also broke the 12s btw. That was MS6Mike car that is now ****** and trying to see how we fix the drivetrain. (see more of this in the MS6 forum)
Last edited:
clos561 said:
well THAT was my point all along! If someone's "primary reason" for buying a car is to simply beat other, higher priced cars... then they should just get the cheapeast/fastest car they can get... since they obviously don't care about much else.
Obviously I was making a joke... clearly it went over like a lead balloon.
- :
- ‘19 CX-5 GTR Tu
SpeedWorld said:
The mazdaspeed3 is quick..it should be able to beat up on older mustang gt's, rx8's, g35's, stock vw's unless they modded. Most late model wrx's from a roll but obviously not from a dig.
from a roll a stock mz3 should be able to keep up with a stock sti but not evo.
I think stock for stock that from a roll a mz3 should be able to outrun a mazdaspeed6 but from a dig AWD RULES! I heard the torque steer off the line is morbid (mz3).
Car's you shouldn't bother racing:
m3, m5, evo8, srt-4, & new mustang gt's.
Quality wise mazda truly does provide a better overal package when you factor in things like 18" rims and turbo disi, lsd, leather, navi etc.
Karma_hunden
Member
- :
- '04 protege, then '05 mazda 3i, then '06 MS6 GT, now '10 RX8 R3
mustang gts are doable. They arent that fast unless modified. SRT4s are modified by this time.
adamsredms3
Member
- :
- 07 Red MS3
CHICO2003 said:
The most 100%, dead on comment anyone has made in all 11 pages of this thread.
Micah said:
No I wasnt making the assumption that all those who upgrade the engine dont do the other stuff. I was just trying to make the point to those that think HP/Torque alone is everything that upgrading just the engine alone to say 500 HP isnt going to make you perform in the same league as a 500 HP factory car. Hence my "unless you upgrade other stuff" comment....
I think we are on the same page
acidbbg said:
I will disagree with the Evo statement either VIII or IX. I have beat both from 40 and 60 rolls many times. Once the srt-4's get stage 2. Then they can beat a stock MS3 easily. But I assume The MS3 will be just as fast if not faster mod for mod. Yes the MS3 is fwd so don't even bother racing from a stop, only roll. It's easier on your car and doesn't draw attention as much. I had modded GSX and it ran low 12's, I learned one thing really quick. Racing from a stop is great but stuff breaks with that much power. So I started going from a roll and it shows how much power the car has not so much on driving skill.
