Your thoughts on the MS3 engine?

[I vtec do you?]

I posted up on a Civic forum (problem right there I suppose) how I was upset that the SI was lacking so far behind the MS3 when they were so comparitively priced.. and someone had this to say about the motor stuffed in the MS3.

"263HP sounds impressive. but the reason its so cheap is because its a very unsophisticated motor with a very unsophisticated turbo. before 3000RPM the turbo is barley kicking and you have no power. after 5500 the engine like dies or something and you make no power. at 6500RPM the engine only makes like 60lb-feet of torque. 60! thats it. so effectivley you need to shift at 5500RPM, no point redlining the car making the Torque less effective.

the Si makes no less than 115lb-ft of torque anywhere from 2000RPM-Redline.

then on top of that you dont get full boost in first and second gear, or when your turning. then with a turbo, you have a turbo lag problem that you dont in NA. engine wise, the si is definetly a better deal."

I'm just wondering if any of you guys agree with any of this, or what is your take on these things? Personally I think the car does quite well to produce 280 ft lbs of torque out of a 4 cyl, but I dont' even want to be looking into a car if it is truly built on an aging platform.

 

[Belvadere]

Everyone here would heartily agree with that. (tongue firmly planted in cheek)

 

[RODSCALIP5]

I agree with it. Now go spread the word.

 

[Haltech]

(rlaugh)

That is called, denial my friend.

 

[Sveivo]

His SI makes no less than 115 pounds of torque!!!!!!! Sorry, but there's something ludicrous in that statement.

Aging platform? Are you serious? Please do a bit more research. Your source is clearly ignorant as can be.

 

[javanc]

The only shred of truth in the post of that whole guy is the age of the platform. It has been around with some tweaks and changes since 2004, but then its still a very good platform. The Honda makes cars on platforms for near 5 years. If a new platform means bi-level gauges then i say keep the old. Aging platform is not an issue with the 3, its still fresh and cool.

Learn to love the torque and the ablity to shift before the enigne spins its way to heaven. But dont get tired of a car after only 5 months, its a bad way to start car ownership. I recommend saving up for the next fun car that comes out around the time you are 25. By that time youll be able to appreciate the car you get and will have some better driving skills under your belt as skill are learned not by the quickness of the car you drive but by the speed and intelligence you make your driving decisions.

 

[6262MS3]

It all depends how you like your power. Honda knows how to squeeze every last ounce of hp from an N/A 4-banger, but the tradeoff is you have to rev the crap out of them to get that power. Before the vtec switchover (~6000rpm) the engine's only making around 130lb/ft and 140hp. The torque peak is somewhere around 6200rpm and it's only 140lb/ft or so. That's pretty weak, but honda gets around it by building their cars lighter than anyone else. Get some passengers or haul some crap and the lack of torque will be noticeable. The ms3 makes twice as much torque at half the rpm. An all aluminum, DOHC, 4-valve per cylinder turbo engine with direct fuel injection is hardly low-tech, Mazda just went for big power with big boost, DISI allows a high (for a turbo) compression ratio so the engine has reasonable torque off-boost (today I was chugging along at 35kms/hour in fourth with no problem), in fact at 2500rpm right before boost kicks in it's making around 150lb/ft, more than the honda's peak at 6200rpm. The turbo is the weak point though, and responsible for the limited power band. I find boost starts coming in around 2500rpm, but from 5500 to 6000 the power starts falling off. If mazda put in a properly sized twin-scroll ball bearing turbo it would spool at the same rpm (if not earlier) and keep making boost all the way to redline. Stock the ms3 has a power band from about 3000rpm to 5500rpm, while the Si has from 6000rpm to 8000rpm so you could argue the ms3 has 500 more rpm to play with. VW probably has the best balance with the 2.0 FSI turbo, peak torque happens at 1800rpm and stays fairly flat throughout the rev range. I'm not saying any car is better than the other but you have to decide what you prefer. I personally like that in 6th on the highway I'm less than 500rpm away from my peak torque so hills and casual passing needs no shifting. I don't know what the Si's geared like but I'm guessing it's not as effortless cruising in top gear.

Sorry for such a long post.

 

[GoFast]

if a platform that is 4'ish years old is considered "old" then yes. but who cares, if it isnt broke dont fix it! look at the VQ35 that platform is old as can be but still one of the best motors around! as for the motor being dead at 6500 rpm, so what. the SI and please keep in mind i have one, doesnt ever make the power we make at any point in the power band. in order to get any power out of the engine you have to rev the crap out of it. I dont mind having to shift at 6k because quite truthfully, by the time that SI motor gets into its power band at 5000+ i am into second and still pulling

 

[Akaveli]

The only shred of truth in the post of that whole guy is the age of the platform. It has been around with some tweaks and changes since 2004, but then its still a very good platform. The Honda makes cars on platforms for near 5 years. If a new platform means bi-level gauges then i say keep the old. Aging platform is not an issue with the 3, its still fresh and cool.

Learn to love the torque and the ablity to shift before the enigne spins its way to heaven. But dont get tired of a car after only 5 months, its a bad way to start car ownership. I recommend saving up for the next fun car that comes out around the time you are 25. By that time youll be able to appreciate the car you get and will have some better driving skills under your belt as skill are learned not by the quickness of the car you drive but by the speed and intelligence you make your driving decisions.

+1 Thank you

 

[mazdaspeednut]

the Si makes no less than 115lb-ft of torque anywhere from 2000RPM-Redline

oh boy wow that kind of torque will really make you yawn lol.

I don't think i have to remind those familar with the ms3 that it is on car and drivers 10 best list. I've read countless reviews of the ms3 from probably 12 sources and i have yet to read one bad review of the car. Every review calls the ms3 a bargain and a must have...practical, good gas mileage...fun to drive...absolutely.


Clearly it's hard to get an independent opinion from a mazda forum or a honda forum...but i can't imagine anyone saying the honda is a better car considering the ms3 beats the honda si in every category...slalom handling, accelleration, lap times etc etc etc...

google mazdaspeed3 reviews and read for yourself...oh yea i remember one review where they slammed the ms3 saying the lack of padding on the drivers door was very irritating lol....

 

[eddienyny]

Ward's 10 Best Engines for 2007.

http://wardsauto.com/reports/2007/tenbest/

It's one of only 2 I-4s on the list.

'nuf said.

 

[BlackCherry06]

That 'lack of sophisitcation" will show an Si your taillights every time, so he can call it what he likes. Who wants to wind up to 8000 rpms just to get power? It's easier, takes less time and is better on the mechanicals to get your power between 2500 - 5500 rather than wait for it to happen when you hit 7000. If he's happy with the way his engine makes power, he can have it. I rather not have to ring my car's neck to make it go.

 

[SwampAss]

two different approaches to building a car. I don't think one engine is better than the other. It depends on what you want. I think people base too much on numbers. The MS3 certainly has the advantage in the power dept but I've read that the Civic handles sharper. I don't know, I've never drive the Si in a manner to test that theory. Neither car's engine is low tech.
People seem to skip over the whole idea of balance. Ever wonder why the Miata sells so well? Too much engine and not enough handling/braking makes a car a handful in spirited driving. Too much chassis/suspension and a boring motor is probably just that, boring.

 

[Antonio DiMarco]

+1- Balance EXACTLY!

People seem to skip over the whole idea of balance. Ever wonder why the Miata sells so well? Too much engine and not enough handling/braking makes a car a handful in spirited driving. Too much chassis/suspension and a boring motor is probably just that, boring.

Balance is the key with ANY car.

I find the guys comment about the MS3 engine being unsophisticated laughable. That comment alone shows his utter lack of knowledge about the car.

 

[Hikaru9]

two different approaches to building a car. I don't think one engine is better than the other. It depends on what you want. I think people base too much on numbers. The MS3 certainly has the advantage in the power dept but I've read that the Civic handles sharper. I don't know, I've never drive the Si in a manner to test that theory. Neither car's engine is low tech.
People seem to skip over the whole idea of balance. Ever wonder why the Miata sells so well? Too much engine and not enough handling/braking makes a car a handful in spirited driving. Too much chassis/suspension and a boring motor is probably just that, boring.

+1

I have owned cars with both engines, and I've loved them both. As you said, they're completely different approaches. Honda, to me, was definitely more refined, easy to live with, and incredibly reliable. I don't believe anyone should say it's inferior just because it's slower. If I wanted speed, I'd buy myself a motorcycle. *^_^*

 

[knowledge007]

All of this crap over some idiot who clearly has no idea what hes is talking about. I have come to the conclusion that he is mad for spending just about the same for a car that has less than half of what we have. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[aciurczak]

If he's going to talk crap, at least let him try to have some data to back up the silliness. The MS3 is making over 180 lb-ft at redline, it's just that feels weak compared to the peak of 280 lb-ft. (yes, this dyno chart appears to be listing crankshaft rather than wheel #'s). The honda doesn't get in the same neighborhood from idle to redline. Heck, it's not in the same zip code.

source: http://wardsauto.com/reports/2007/tenbest/mazda_2-3L_disi/

 

[I vtec do you?]

Haha sorry guys.. I wasn't trying to start a fight here. I was just wondering what your take on that was, and if there was any validity in some of the statements.. such as only making 60 lbs of torque at redline.

There is no need to bash the SI though.. different strokes for different folks. Some guys like the power up high, and apparently you guys like it right in the middle, which is what I would prefer as well.

I'm curious though, does chipping the MS3 yield any positive results in making more power up top? It would be nice to be making near-peak power all the way to redline instead of dieing off before it.

 

[SwampAss]

There are only a few cars here with stand alone systems. I've seen some dyno reports on those cars. They appear to make solid gains through out.

Still drops off though.

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2958379&postcount=174

 

[knowledge007]

Haha sorry guys.. I wasn't trying to start a fight here. I was just wondering what your take on that was, and if there was any validity in some of the statements.. such as only making 60 lbs of torque at redline.

There is no need to bash the SI though.. different strokes for different folks. Some guys like the power up high, and apparently you guys like it right in the middle, which is what I would prefer as well.

I'm curious though, does chipping the MS3 yield any positive results in making more power up top? It would be nice to be making near-peak power all the way to redline instead of dieing off before it.

You can not compare an SI to a MS3 considering the power straight from the factory. Not to mention we have a TURBO. Its like comparing apples to oranges.