They give it 2 out of 5 stars. Their main complaint: too much torque for a FWD...
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12929-2522525,00.html
Mazda3 MPS
A classic abuse of power
Would you be so silly as to buy a car without driving it? If you looked at the specification of the new Mazda3 MPS, you just might. On paper it doesnt matter whether you compare it with the VW Golf GTI, Vauxhall Astra VXR, Ford Focus ST-2 or Mgane RenaultSport 225; it beats them all for power, acceleration and speed. Unlike the Ford and VW it doesnt cost extra for five doors and, at 18,995, it is the cheapest, too. Case closed, then.
Er, not quite. Rarely can such raw data give more than a guide to a cars abilities indeed they often serve to obscure more important qualities such as ride, handling and enjoyment. Such is the case here.
Admittedly this is the fastest of the Golf-class fast hatches. Powered by a turbocharged 2.3 litre four-cylinder motor it attempts to direct 256bhp to the road through the front wheels.
Now Im going to mention torque, and before your eyes glaze over and you remind me this is not Autocar, it is important. When you accelerate it is torque, not power, that you feel. And the problem with torque when its directed through the front wheels is that it tends to have undesirable effects on the steering.
Most manufacturers shy away from creating front-drive cars with much more than 200 lb ft of torque. Take the VW Golf: in GTI form it has 207 lb ft of torque and front-wheel drive, but when you upgrade to the R32 model with 236 lb ft of torque, VW uprates the car to four-wheel drive, so the maximum torque each wheel needs to handle is in effect halved. The Mazda3 MPS has 280 lb ft of torque, every last bit of which has to go through the front wheels.
Its too much. For while this is a stunningly fast car (its 0-62mph time of 6.1sec may sound quick but it would be at least 0.5sec quicker if it were rear or four-wheel drive), it is not a particularly fun car. And this is why: the only reason for buying a car like this is to make the most of its performance, but it wont let you.
Put your foot down and as the acceleration builds so does the side-to-side tugging at the steering. If you persevere and if the road is at all damp (as it was during my week with the car), the front wheels will soon lose traction in first, second and occasionally even third gear, despite the fitment of a limited slip differential designed to stop precisely that. Press on further and the traction control will simply cut the power. And this is when youre travelling in a straight line.
In an attempt to try to string a few wet corners together I turned the traction control off, but this made things worse. If you push it hard, as its styling and engine power invite, it requires more effort than a modern family hatch should to keep it pointing in the desired direction.
The shame is that I can see how tantalisingly close to being a decent car the Mazda3 comes. It looks good, steers nicely until you put your foot down and even offers reasonable accommodation.
Its well equipped, with standard climate control, cruise control, part leather sports seats and electric everything. Theres a slick six-speed gearbox and excellent brakes. Even the engine can hardly be blamed: it sounds purposeful and has minimal turbo lag for such a high output.
No, the only thing that went wrong was when the engineers decided it was okay to up the power and leave everything else the same. It wasnt, and the result undermines the car.
If Mazda had kept the engine as it is, provided all-wheel drive and put two grand on the price, or if it left the car alone but dropped power and torque by 20% and lopped two grand off the price, either result would have been better. What is most puzzling is not simply how the same people who make drivers cars as good as the MX-5 and RX-8 could get this so wrong, but the fact that this engine can also be found in the Mazda6 MPS, a fine and underrated machine. Why does it succeed where the Mazda3 fails? Three little words: four-wheel drive. If it had it, I suspect the Mazda3 MPS would be a winner; without it, it is at best a flawed also-ran.
Model Mazda3 MPS
Engine type 2261cc, four cylinders
Power/Torque 256bhp @ 5500rpm / 280 lb ft @ 3000rpm
Transmission Six-speed manual
Fuel/CO2 29.1mpg (combined) / 231g/km
Performance 0-62mph: 6.1sec / Top speed: 155mph
Price 18,995
Verdict Nice idea, shame about the execution
Rating Two stars (out of five)
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12929-2522525,00.html
Mazda3 MPS
A classic abuse of power
Would you be so silly as to buy a car without driving it? If you looked at the specification of the new Mazda3 MPS, you just might. On paper it doesnt matter whether you compare it with the VW Golf GTI, Vauxhall Astra VXR, Ford Focus ST-2 or Mgane RenaultSport 225; it beats them all for power, acceleration and speed. Unlike the Ford and VW it doesnt cost extra for five doors and, at 18,995, it is the cheapest, too. Case closed, then.
Er, not quite. Rarely can such raw data give more than a guide to a cars abilities indeed they often serve to obscure more important qualities such as ride, handling and enjoyment. Such is the case here.
Admittedly this is the fastest of the Golf-class fast hatches. Powered by a turbocharged 2.3 litre four-cylinder motor it attempts to direct 256bhp to the road through the front wheels.
Now Im going to mention torque, and before your eyes glaze over and you remind me this is not Autocar, it is important. When you accelerate it is torque, not power, that you feel. And the problem with torque when its directed through the front wheels is that it tends to have undesirable effects on the steering.
Most manufacturers shy away from creating front-drive cars with much more than 200 lb ft of torque. Take the VW Golf: in GTI form it has 207 lb ft of torque and front-wheel drive, but when you upgrade to the R32 model with 236 lb ft of torque, VW uprates the car to four-wheel drive, so the maximum torque each wheel needs to handle is in effect halved. The Mazda3 MPS has 280 lb ft of torque, every last bit of which has to go through the front wheels.
Its too much. For while this is a stunningly fast car (its 0-62mph time of 6.1sec may sound quick but it would be at least 0.5sec quicker if it were rear or four-wheel drive), it is not a particularly fun car. And this is why: the only reason for buying a car like this is to make the most of its performance, but it wont let you.
Put your foot down and as the acceleration builds so does the side-to-side tugging at the steering. If you persevere and if the road is at all damp (as it was during my week with the car), the front wheels will soon lose traction in first, second and occasionally even third gear, despite the fitment of a limited slip differential designed to stop precisely that. Press on further and the traction control will simply cut the power. And this is when youre travelling in a straight line.
In an attempt to try to string a few wet corners together I turned the traction control off, but this made things worse. If you push it hard, as its styling and engine power invite, it requires more effort than a modern family hatch should to keep it pointing in the desired direction.
The shame is that I can see how tantalisingly close to being a decent car the Mazda3 comes. It looks good, steers nicely until you put your foot down and even offers reasonable accommodation.
Its well equipped, with standard climate control, cruise control, part leather sports seats and electric everything. Theres a slick six-speed gearbox and excellent brakes. Even the engine can hardly be blamed: it sounds purposeful and has minimal turbo lag for such a high output.
No, the only thing that went wrong was when the engineers decided it was okay to up the power and leave everything else the same. It wasnt, and the result undermines the car.
If Mazda had kept the engine as it is, provided all-wheel drive and put two grand on the price, or if it left the car alone but dropped power and torque by 20% and lopped two grand off the price, either result would have been better. What is most puzzling is not simply how the same people who make drivers cars as good as the MX-5 and RX-8 could get this so wrong, but the fact that this engine can also be found in the Mazda6 MPS, a fine and underrated machine. Why does it succeed where the Mazda3 fails? Three little words: four-wheel drive. If it had it, I suspect the Mazda3 MPS would be a winner; without it, it is at best a flawed also-ran.
Model Mazda3 MPS
Engine type 2261cc, four cylinders
Power/Torque 256bhp @ 5500rpm / 280 lb ft @ 3000rpm
Transmission Six-speed manual
Fuel/CO2 29.1mpg (combined) / 231g/km
Performance 0-62mph: 6.1sec / Top speed: 155mph
Price 18,995
Verdict Nice idea, shame about the execution
Rating Two stars (out of five)
Last edited:
