Why do you think?

[RHAGEL]

I now wonder why mazda increased the 3i to 150hp. This now only puts a 10 hp difference between the two. I know the 2.3 has a lot more potential, but so does the 2.0. It almost seems pointless to have two different engines now.

 

[anarchistchiken]

Prestige more than anything else I would imagine. "S" is always better than "i" in the car world.

 

[Mikey444]

They added VVT to the 2.0 for 2006 so that's why it got that boost in power. It's not pointless getting the bigger engine. You get bigger brakes and have higher end options and nicer looking exterior.

 

[RHAGEL]

They added VVT to the 2.0 for 2006 so that's why it got that boost in power. It's not pointless getting the bigger engine. You get bigger brakes and have higher end options and nicer looking exterior.

The brakes and options can be added without different engine sizes. I have a Protege ES which has the same engine as the DX & LX, but I have a nicer interior and 4 wheel discs. I am just suprised that that they would have two engines so close in power. Don't get me wrong though, I would much rather had the 2.3. As soon as someone finds out how to crack our ECU and we get a re-programmer, I think then we will begin to see some substantial differences.

 

[wongpres]

In real-world driving, it's not necessarily the peak number (horsepower, or even more importantly, torque) that counts. Rather, graphing out the torque and horsepower curves, it's the area under the curve which is really important. Despite the seemingly close peak horsepower numbers, the 2.3l has a far broader, stronger, and meatier area under the curves than the 2.0l. This can be felt in real-world driving (though the 2.0l is no slouch, especially compared to a lot of the low hp and low torque competition).

Having said that, there is one more factor and that is gear ratios. Knowing the gear ratios can give an idea of what aspects of the engine curves are emphasized, but one has to drive the car to really get the full feeling.

Of course, the 2.3l also has disadvantages, namely weight and fuel efficiency.

 

[RHAGEL]

I didn't really consider the power ranges for the cars, though it is a good point. I was looking at it from a marketing perspective. Maybe there are a larger number of enthusiasts that buy a Mazda 3 but the majority of buyers would not notice. Many buyers don't consider performance as a large factor when buying and if they see 150 vs 160 hp, that does not mean much to many people. Especially when you look at the gas mileage differences. I was thinking that maybe there is a larger profit margin on the i models so they are trying to dress them up to be more attractive. Don't get me wrong, because I am an enthusiast I would go for the s model, but I would hardly say that I am a typical buyer.

 

[RonH]

I saw the new Mazda3 HB online when I was thinking about a Protege5. I felt this was the car for me (btw my 72nd one). I researched it, found one close by, went down and test drove one and bought it. I never considered the "i" model because it wasn't available in a hatch. The hp difference never came into play.

I might have bought a 2.0L hatch if one was offered.

 

[RHAGEL]

I saw the new Mazda3 HB online when I was thinking about a Protege5. I felt this was the car for me (btw my 72nd one). I researched it, found one close by, went down and test drove one and bought it. I never considered the "i" model because it wasn't available in a hatch. The hp difference never came into play.

I might have bought a 2.0L hatch if one was offered.

You made my point exactly. Most people don't really care about 10 hp. In your case because you were looking for a hatch you didn't have an option. Even reviews about the two different models have said that there isn't much of driving difference. Maybe we will see 170-180 hp for the next generation 3s? I can guarantee that mazda can easily squeak out more power without drastically effecting emissions.