Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks Mazda3 MazdaSpeed3: Styling Impressions
548 messages, Last post on Aug 08, 2007 at 5:21 PM
You are in the Mazda3 Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: mdaffron (Oct 27, 2005 8:29 am) So, Meade, does that mean that the more boring an engine gets, the more interesting it is? 
|
|
|
Replying to: mdaffron (Oct 27, 2005 8:29 am) Meade – I disagree with you on the V6 configuration for the very fact that it’s V and not an I configuration. V squares off a normally rectangular shaped I engine. So, more or less, a V6 would take up as much room as an I4 (assuming less than 1.0 L difference) between the front tires. The V would take up the balance of the space between the fire wall and the radiator for its size. Engineers at Ford once toyed with the idea of putting the 2.5L V-6 in the first gen. Focus. Actually, they did stuff it in there; it worked. But repeating it in production was another issue. So, for the SVT Focus they went with a better breathing I-4. The first gen Focus is smaller in size (approx. 2.5”) between the front tires than this new C1 platform found on the new Volvo S40/V50, Mazda 3, & New Euro Focus. My V-6 Contour was similar in size as the Mazda. Width is identical; length is 6-8 inches shorter (depending on sedan vs. hatch); and the Mazda is a few inches higher. The V-6 in the Contour left little room for much else in the engine bay. The V-6 is nice, but handling is sacrificed. The weight of the V-6 would cause more nervousness than an I-4 when roads begin to wind. Equal balance front to back and left to right is ideal. The RX-8 is built as such. Equal balance front to back is next to ideal (e.g. Miata and BMW 3). No doubt, a V-6 would definitely need AWD. But the handling would still labor compared to an I-4 AWD. Mazda should go with an I-4 supercharger and turbocharger: the super for power at idle to 3k rpms and the turbo for anything above 3k. I don’t know where the AWD for the Mazda came from: did they develop a new system or borrow and already existing one? Either way, the Mazda 3 chassis already has an available AWD system available from Volvo. Or they could modify the Mazda 6 version. Either way, 250+ HP deserves AWD to reign in all that power. Without the AWD, the Mazdaspeed 3 is a torque steering POS. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: chacobleu (Oct 28, 2005 5:56 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: autonomous (Oct 28, 2005 8:28 am) With 220hp, AWD is optional. But Mazda's competitor is more than just Acura (e.g. Subaru & Mitsubishi with their overblown engine and AWD) Besides, Acura doesn't have a turbo boost of power causing chassis twitches. AWD allows that burst of energy to be (potentially) spread to all four corners of the vehicle. With 220hp and only front-wheel drive, Mazda would compare itself to the Dodge Neon SRT-4. Not a good image.
|
|
|
Replying to: chacobleu (Oct 28, 2005 5:56 am) Engineers at Ford have also developed a kit to convert the car to RWD and drop in various Ford V8 engines (google "V8 Focus). Nasty little beast.... "Mazda should go with an I-4 supercharger and turbocharger: the super for power at idle to 3k rpms and the turbo for anything above 3k." Not too practical if price is a consideration. Besides, with variable vane technology, boost can come on pretty quick. |
|
|
Replying to: chacobleu (Oct 28, 2005 9:46 am) Why? I've heard mostly good things about the SRT-4 drivetrain; it's the fact that it sits under a Neon which is the problem.... |
|
|
is actually something that VW has come out with. The idea is to put it on a small engine to get better fuel economy, with the power potential of a bigger engine. Both units can be smaller, and targeted for a narrower range, playing to the strengths of each. When you just use one, it often ends up being way bigger than needed for use when it isn't in the efficient rev range. Or something like that. It made a lot of sense when I read it in the magazine! engines really are ineffiicient in their use of capacity. You they are way bigger than needed most of the time, just so the can handle the need the rare times when you need it. THink if you could get WOT performance of a Corvette out of a 3 liter V6, that's the general idea.
|
|
|
I was talking about the OEM 4-cyl in comparison with Volvo's 5-cyl, which is an in-line engine. Yes, a V6 is wider and would fill up some of that front-to-back space. Meade
|
|
|
Replying to: stickguy (Oct 28, 2005 1:46 pm) But I thought VW is the first company to adopt such technology, not pioneer it? In other words, that setup is available to all (of course, if the "Price Is Right"). BTW - Good article. |
|
|
Replying to: mdaffron (Nov 02, 2005 8:48 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Mazda3 MazdaSpeed3: Styling Impressions
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Mazda MAZDASPEED MAZDA3
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
