06 SS/SC vs New Mazda Speed 3
04-02-2007, 11:52 PM
#52
Senior Member
No, im not stock. I trap 108....thats NOT STOCK. The ms3 was stock, hit a 14.3 at 97....and once the ms3's get front mount intercoolers in the bumpers, that right there will gain a good amount of hp
04-03-2007, 12:17 AM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-19-06
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That means that if you floor the Honda's loud pedal anywhere between two and eight grand, you'll have at your disposal at least 85% of the maximum quoted torque. VW's turbo GTI will hand over at least 70% of its peak number at any time from two grand to its own redline. The Mazda is far behind the others at 20%.
Of course, the 'Speed 3 makes a much higher peak torque number than either the VW or the Honda (in fact, its peak is almost twice what the Honda puts out). But the GTI's engine, which is 0.3 liter smaller than the Mazda's, actually makes more torque than the Mazda from idle to 2700rpm--and again from 5800rpm to redline. The result is that the VW responds to gas pedal inputs with proportional urgency while the Mazda is sometimes fantastically fast, and sometimes--quite surprisingly--not.
A dual-scroll turbocharger like the one in the Saturn Sky Red Line and Pontiac Solstice GXP would help the Mazdaspeed 3 in increasing its usable rev range. As you can see in the comparison graph between the 3 and the Sky Red Line, peak numbers are similar, but the shapes of the torque curves tell two very different stories. GM's dual-scroll turbo builds boost much earlier, and has almost reached its torque peak by 2000 rpm. At that speed, the Saturn's 2.0-liter generates 210 lb-ft, compared to the larger Mazda engine's 128. Torque is similar throughout the midrange once the Mazda finally wakes up at 3000. By 6000, Mazda's engine is running out of breath, putting out 138 lb-ft while the smaller GM engine still manages 168.
Punch the accelerator at 3000 rpm in a Mazdaspeed 3 and you'll probably smile, too. But if you compare it to the more sophisticated engines of the other cars here, you may find it lacking the linearity and broad-range power delivery that set apart the merely powerful engines from the truly magnificent."
Sounds like the Mazda's engine is a little less refined than the others to me.
Where did you see that the Mazda has 290whp? The dyno show 216 to the wheels, pretty similar to many SS/SC's.
Last edited by N8s07SS; 04-03-2007 at 12:17 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
04-03-2007, 12:42 AM
#56
New Member
Join Date: 12-11-05
Location: orlando, fl
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Originally Posted by IrishMidakWow, 290whp on a Mazda? What would I need to do to get a SS/SC up there?
Where did you see that the Mazda has 290whp? The dyno show 216 to the wheels, pretty similar to many SS/SC's.
With the xede tune it makes 290 whp......... not stock. Just a tunning, imagine what it will do with all the bolt ons.......
Where did you see that the Mazda has 290whp? The dyno show 216 to the wheels, pretty similar to many SS/SC's.
With the xede tune it makes 290 whp......... not stock. Just a tunning, imagine what it will do with all the bolt ons.......
04-03-2007, 12:43 AM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-19-06
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memphisr24, why don't you submit your timeslip to the official 1/4 mile thread? You'd be about halfway up that list I believe with that 13.4 in your sig. Just an observation.
04-03-2007, 12:43 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-21-06
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-03-2007, 12:55 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-19-06
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: Originally Posted by IrishMidakWow, 290whp on a Mazda? What would I need to do to get a SS/SC up there?
Where did you see that the Mazda has 290whp? The dyno show 216 to the wheels, pretty similar to many SS/SC's.
With the xede tune it makes 290 whp......... not stock. Just a tunning, imagine what it will do with all the bolt ons.......
Where did you see that the Mazda has 290whp? The dyno show 216 to the wheels, pretty similar to many SS/SC's.
With the xede tune it makes 290 whp......... not stock. Just a tunning, imagine what it will do with all the bolt ons.......
04-03-2007, 01:15 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: 08-05-06
Location: Moncton canada
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really contradicts what the article states (last page):
"That means that if you floor the Honda's loud pedal anywhere between two and eight grand, you'll have at your disposal at least 85% of the maximum quoted torque. VW's turbo GTI will hand over at least 70% of its peak number at any time from two grand to its own redline. The Mazda is far behind the others at 20%.
Of course, the 'Speed 3 makes a much higher peak torque number than either the VW or the Honda (in fact, its peak is almost twice what the Honda puts out). But the GTI's engine, which is 0.3 liter smaller than the Mazda's, actually makes more torque than the Mazda from idle to 2700rpm--and again from 5800rpm to redline. The result is that the VW responds to gas pedal inputs with proportional urgency while the Mazda is sometimes fantastically fast, and sometimes--quite surprisingly--not.
A dual-scroll turbocharger like the one in the Saturn Sky Red Line and Pontiac Solstice GXP would help the Mazdaspeed 3 in increasing its usable rev range. As you can see in the comparison graph between the 3 and the Sky Red Line, peak numbers are similar, but the shapes of the torque curves tell two very different stories. GM's dual-scroll turbo builds boost much earlier, and has almost reached its torque peak by 2000 rpm. At that speed, the Saturn's 2.0-liter generates 210 lb-ft, compared to the larger Mazda engine's 128. Torque is similar throughout the midrange once the Mazda finally wakes up at 3000. By 6000, Mazda's engine is running out of breath, putting out 138 lb-ft while the smaller GM engine still manages 168.
Punch the accelerator at 3000 rpm in a Mazdaspeed 3 and you'll probably smile, too. But if you compare it to the more sophisticated engines of the other cars here, you may find it lacking the linearity and broad-range power delivery that set apart the merely powerful engines from the truly magnificent."
Sounds like the Mazda's engine is a little less refined than the others to me.
Where did you see that the Mazda has 290whp? The dyno show 216 to the wheels, pretty similar to many SS/SC's.
"That means that if you floor the Honda's loud pedal anywhere between two and eight grand, you'll have at your disposal at least 85% of the maximum quoted torque. VW's turbo GTI will hand over at least 70% of its peak number at any time from two grand to its own redline. The Mazda is far behind the others at 20%.
Of course, the 'Speed 3 makes a much higher peak torque number than either the VW or the Honda (in fact, its peak is almost twice what the Honda puts out). But the GTI's engine, which is 0.3 liter smaller than the Mazda's, actually makes more torque than the Mazda from idle to 2700rpm--and again from 5800rpm to redline. The result is that the VW responds to gas pedal inputs with proportional urgency while the Mazda is sometimes fantastically fast, and sometimes--quite surprisingly--not.
A dual-scroll turbocharger like the one in the Saturn Sky Red Line and Pontiac Solstice GXP would help the Mazdaspeed 3 in increasing its usable rev range. As you can see in the comparison graph between the 3 and the Sky Red Line, peak numbers are similar, but the shapes of the torque curves tell two very different stories. GM's dual-scroll turbo builds boost much earlier, and has almost reached its torque peak by 2000 rpm. At that speed, the Saturn's 2.0-liter generates 210 lb-ft, compared to the larger Mazda engine's 128. Torque is similar throughout the midrange once the Mazda finally wakes up at 3000. By 6000, Mazda's engine is running out of breath, putting out 138 lb-ft while the smaller GM engine still manages 168.
Punch the accelerator at 3000 rpm in a Mazdaspeed 3 and you'll probably smile, too. But if you compare it to the more sophisticated engines of the other cars here, you may find it lacking the linearity and broad-range power delivery that set apart the merely powerful engines from the truly magnificent."
Sounds like the Mazda's engine is a little less refined than the others to me.
Where did you see that the Mazda has 290whp? The dyno show 216 to the wheels, pretty similar to many SS/SC's.
" The result is that the VW responds to gas pedal inputs with proportional urgency while the Mazda is sometimes fantastically fast, and sometimes--quite surprisingly--not."
This gives you momentum for next gear and higher rpms for next gear. I am not knocking the MS3, just it lacks power up top, and this leads the car, IMO, not being a very fun car to drive. If the car would pull up top like it does in the mid-range, it would walk over a ss/sc anyday, and prob a GM S2 anyday aswell. But as it stands, it is deff in the same category as a stock ss/sc with a slight power edge. Totally not what the hype was all about.
04-03-2007, 01:26 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: www.mp5t.com
Posts: 4,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The car is not limited in only 1 and 2.
But 3 as well. The car and driver test did not take into account the traction control.
MT Drag radials and Torque Kill Kill have already been implemented.
Unlike SC, a turbo can simply bump the boost, watch out for a couple blown engines, but a couple of silly quick Mazdas.
04-03-2007, 01:30 PM
#62
Senior Member
216 because they pulled in 3rd
The car is not limited in only 1 and 2.
But 3 as well. The car and driver test did not take into account the traction control.
MT Drag radials and Torque Kill Kill have already been implemented.
Unlike SC, a turbo can simply bump the boost, watch out for a couple blown engines, but a couple of silly quick Mazdas.
The car is not limited in only 1 and 2.
But 3 as well. The car and driver test did not take into account the traction control.
MT Drag radials and Torque Kill Kill have already been implemented.
Unlike SC, a turbo can simply bump the boost, watch out for a couple blown engines, but a couple of silly quick Mazdas.
04-03-2007, 01:31 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: 08-05-06
Location: Moncton canada
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
216 because they pulled in 3rd
The car is not limited in only 1 and 2.
But 3 as well. The car and driver test did not take into account the traction control.
Unlike SC, a turbo can simply bump the boost, watch out for a couple blown engines, but a couple of silly quick Mazdas.
The car is not limited in only 1 and 2.
But 3 as well. The car and driver test did not take into account the traction control.
Unlike SC, a turbo can simply bump the boost, watch out for a couple blown engines, but a couple of silly quick Mazdas.
04-03-2007, 03:00 PM
#65
Senior Member
not a bad little car really.
obviously the numbers they were bragging last year are noticably inflated....
but it sounds like its gonna be another car that loves modding and tuning.
not really my cup of tea for styling....and the rims look like they are made of silver painted cardboard......
nevertheless. its always good to see another vehicle company support the compact tuner revolution
obviously the numbers they were bragging last year are noticably inflated....
but it sounds like its gonna be another car that loves modding and tuning.
not really my cup of tea for styling....and the rims look like they are made of silver painted cardboard......
nevertheless. its always good to see another vehicle company support the compact tuner revolution
04-03-2007, 04:07 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-09-06
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they likely would if they weren't limited....280 ft lbs in a fwd car.... that's probly around 240fwtq...isn't that more than guys running like 2.5"s? Thats ALOT of torque for a front wheel drive car. Now also to add to that, just from looking at the damn thing it seems like it rpobably has quite a bit more weight distributed to the rear compared to say an ss/sc, which would just make traction worse...I think ford is thinking exactly how they should be for advertising purposes. Sure the car can hit 13's stock, but now think about this. LOTS of mags ran high 14's with the ss/sc when it first came out because its hard to launch. Now some buyers may instantly think that is all an ss/sc can do because these "professional drivers" could only muster a 14.9....we know differently. Now without this torque limiting, we would probably be seeing alot of high 14's out of the ms3 from mags instead of the consistant mid-low 14's we are seeing. Same thing happened with the srt-4....an experienced driver with the car can hit 13's, but most mags hit mid-high 14's... Many buyers base their decision off of what magazines/tv tell them, so really i think it was a good idea for selling. car will be faster when tuning gets rid of the limters, but still...its more consistant this way.
04-03-2007, 04:43 PM
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-01-05
Location: Delaware
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My friend has a red one that works here with me. He put an intake in it so far, the one strait from Mazda. We are going to hit the track up within the next few weeks. He wants to get his first oil change out of the way first, and has about 1500 miles on the car.
he completely refuses to race me anywhere but the track, but he knows IM modded out the ass, and I believe is scared shitless.
None the less, I will have videos and slips soon to show what one runs.
Theres a lot of different dyno charts out there for the MS3. They show everything from like 206 WHP/ 215 TQ to like 276 HP and 280TQ. To be honest I think theres too much variation. Road and track has it listed @ 216 HP and a 14.4 Sport compact has it listed w/ intake and exaust @ 260 in print, but on the chart @ 234 WHP. So I dont know how well I would trust it. But for it to be running 14's it would probably be pretty comparable in HP to a stock SS, maybe a little more HP, but I think it weighs 400+ lbs more too.
he completely refuses to race me anywhere but the track, but he knows IM modded out the ass, and I believe is scared shitless.
None the less, I will have videos and slips soon to show what one runs.
Theres a lot of different dyno charts out there for the MS3. They show everything from like 206 WHP/ 215 TQ to like 276 HP and 280TQ. To be honest I think theres too much variation. Road and track has it listed @ 216 HP and a 14.4 Sport compact has it listed w/ intake and exaust @ 260 in print, but on the chart @ 234 WHP. So I dont know how well I would trust it. But for it to be running 14's it would probably be pretty comparable in HP to a stock SS, maybe a little more HP, but I think it weighs 400+ lbs more too.
04-03-2007, 06:18 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-09-06
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My friend has a red one that works here with me. He put an intake in it so far, the one strait from Mazda. We are going to hit the track up within the next few weeks. He wants to get his first oil change out of the way first, and has about 1500 miles on the car.
he completely refuses to race me anywhere but the track, but he knows IM modded out the ass, and I believe is scared shitless.
None the less, I will have videos and slips soon to show what one runs.
Theres a lot of different dyno charts out there for the MS3. They show everything from like 206 WHP/ 215 TQ to like 276 HP and 280TQ. To be honest I think theres too much variation. Road and track has it listed @ 216 HP and a 14.4 Sport compact has it listed w/ intake and exaust @ 260 in print, but on the chart @ 234 WHP. So I dont know how well I would trust it. But for it to be running 14's it would probably be pretty comparable in HP to a stock SS, maybe a little more HP, but I think it weighs 400+ lbs more too.
he completely refuses to race me anywhere but the track, but he knows IM modded out the ass, and I believe is scared shitless.
None the less, I will have videos and slips soon to show what one runs.
Theres a lot of different dyno charts out there for the MS3. They show everything from like 206 WHP/ 215 TQ to like 276 HP and 280TQ. To be honest I think theres too much variation. Road and track has it listed @ 216 HP and a 14.4 Sport compact has it listed w/ intake and exaust @ 260 in print, but on the chart @ 234 WHP. So I dont know how well I would trust it. But for it to be running 14's it would probably be pretty comparable in HP to a stock SS, maybe a little more HP, but I think it weighs 400+ lbs more too.
04-03-2007, 08:37 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-01-05
Location: Delaware
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobalt SS 2900 LBS
Mazda S3 3100 LBs
Its actually lighter then i thought. 200 lbs extra would mean the speed to run the exact same 1/4 mile would need an addition 6 % HP to be evenly matched. Average stock dyno # for an SS is 220 HP, so add 6% to that and it works out to 233 HP to run even.
So in theory they should have a little more HP then an SS to run an equal time if not even more to be slightly faster.
This is of course if you take Redline, gear ratios, driver, etc out. Above only should be used for speculation purposes
Mazda S3 3100 LBs
Its actually lighter then i thought. 200 lbs extra would mean the speed to run the exact same 1/4 mile would need an addition 6 % HP to be evenly matched. Average stock dyno # for an SS is 220 HP, so add 6% to that and it works out to 233 HP to run even.
So in theory they should have a little more HP then an SS to run an equal time if not even more to be slightly faster.
This is of course if you take Redline, gear ratios, driver, etc out. Above only should be used for speculation purposes
04-04-2007, 12:17 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: 08-05-06
Location: Moncton canada
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they likely would if they weren't limited....280 ft lbs in a fwd car.... that's probly around 240fwtq...isn't that more than guys running like 2.5"s? Thats ALOT of torque for a front wheel drive car. Now also to add to that, just from looking at the damn thing it seems like it rpobably has quite a bit more weight distributed to the rear compared to say an ss/sc, which would just make traction worse...I think ford is thinking exactly how they should be for advertising purposes. Sure the car can hit 13's stock, but now think about this. LOTS of mags ran high 14's with the ss/sc when it first came out because its hard to launch. Now some buyers may instantly think that is all an ss/sc can do because these "professional drivers" could only muster a 14.9....we know differently. Now without this torque limiting, we would probably be seeing alot of high 14's out of the ms3 from mags instead of the consistant mid-low 14's we are seeing. Same thing happened with the srt-4....an experienced driver with the car can hit 13's, but most mags hit mid-high 14's... Many buyers base their decision off of what magazines/tv tell them, so really i think it was a good idea for selling. car will be faster when tuning gets rid of the limters, but still...its more consistant this way.
Hit the nail right on its head. One intelligent thing made by FORD. hahahaha Hate ford, but like where mazda is going these days.
04-05-2007, 01:42 AM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-02-05
Location: Mesa, Az
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was at a Mazda dealer the other week looking at a Mazda3 for my g/f the saleskid was trying to tell me that they dynoed one at their dealership and it put down like 270 to the wheels bone stock and that it'll run a 13.0 flat bonestock.
I laughed in his face and told him I'm no idiot and he can't pull that **** over on me. There's no ******* way you're getting 13.0 flat from something that weighs 3000+ pounds, way less than 300 whp and is front wheel drive.
He had nothing to say after I shut him down on his stupidity.
Oh yeah, car and driver only managed a 14.4 @ 100 mph...13.0 my ass... and this is what it dynos at
http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...daspeed_3.html
I laughed in his face and told him I'm no idiot and he can't pull that **** over on me. There's no ******* way you're getting 13.0 flat from something that weighs 3000+ pounds, way less than 300 whp and is front wheel drive.
He had nothing to say after I shut him down on his stupidity.
Oh yeah, car and driver only managed a 14.4 @ 100 mph...13.0 my ass... and this is what it dynos at
http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...daspeed_3.html
04-05-2007, 11:37 PM
#72
New Member
Join Date: 04-02-07
Location: NY
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guy pulled off a 13.029
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mazda-3-Timeslip-10980.html
It would seem a few bolt ons puts the SS/SC in second place.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mazda-3-Timeslip-10980.html
It would seem a few bolt ons puts the SS/SC in second place.
04-05-2007, 11:57 PM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-19-06
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guy pulled off a 13.029
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mazda-3-Timeslip-10980.html
It would seem a few bolt ons puts the SS/SC in second place.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mazda-3-Timeslip-10980.html
It would seem a few bolt ons puts the SS/SC in second place.
Don't get me wrong though, it's a sick MS3, but it has a little more than "a few bolt ons"
Holy hell, his trap speed was only 103 with a 13 second ET, is it just me or is that a little low?
I think this is a little more realistic for a stock/stock comparison. It is better than even Tofu was able to achieve in the SS:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mazda-3-Timeslip-11703.html
Last edited by N8s07SS; 04-05-2007 at 11:57 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
04-06-2007, 07:14 AM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: www.mp5t.com
Posts: 4,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mazda Makes the I4
The car is assembled in Hiroshima Japan.
The company designed this car from scratch without off the shelf parts.
Not exactly a Ford...
They limit 3rd gear because is still spins the stock tires in 3rd at 65 MPH.
Torque Kill Kill is an electronic device that overrides the torque limiter in 1-3.
Your sure yer not from Shediac? I was really clear.
Last edited by Brian MP5T; 04-06-2007 at 07:14 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
