Last post on Oct 10, 2013 at 7:50 AM
You are in the Honda Civic
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Mazda MAZDA3, Sedan
#897 of 1341 Honda "behind?"[aviboy97]
Aug 30, 2006 (6:48 am)
Next time you post, it would be a curtious to all of us if you did your homework. Mazda had a 1.8L engine in the mid to 90's until 2005 that produced 142 HP, naturally aspirated. Seems the 2006 Civic is a bit behind?
Do a little homework yourself; the 1.8 produced 133 horsepower at the most, until 1999.
Mind telling what MPG that 1.8 L yielded? 22CITY/28HWY vs. 30CITY/40HWY for the Honda. This was in the 2000 Mazda with the 1.8L 140 horsepower and less torque than a Civic. It got a whopping 2 hp boost in 2001, making it have 2 horsepower more than a Civic, with 8-12 MPGs lower than the Civic that weighs 250 lbs more.
I don't think I'm buying your statement about Honda being behind.
#898 of 1341 Re: Honda "behind?"[aviboy97] [thegraduate]
Aug 30, 2006 (7:43 am)
man graduate thank you! You worded it much better than i did.
#899 of 1341 Re: Honda "behind?"[aviboy97] [thegraduate]
Aug 30, 2006 (10:23 am)
My comment was based on the previous posters comment about Mazda producing a 1.8L with more then 120 hp with out boosting it. That's all. I never made the fuel economy claim, or torque. We are also looking at an engine design by Mazda that is nearly 10 years old vs. Honda's newer 1.8L Of course there will be better fuel economy. Mazda's 2.0L with 148 hp makes 35 mpg (new SAE HP rating). See the improvement in engine technology?
#900 of 1341 Re: Honda "behind?"[aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97]
Aug 30, 2006 (11:17 am)
Mazda's 2.0L with 148 hp makes 35 mpg
Ok, and a Honda with a 1.8L makes 140 hp and 40 MPG. That's a difference of 14% of economy for an extra 5% of power. Considering these are compact cars, many people want economy over power, especially when power is adequate in all but the most basic of cars these days.
I know you never made an economy claim, but you did state that Honda seemed "behind" by referencing the fact that Mazda was making more horsepower in the mid-90s from the same size engine(1.8L); not true. When Mazda did start making the same horsepower as the Civic in 1999(140 hp, less torque than Civic though), it had economy that was MUCH lower than the heavier Civic (by 10 MPG or so)...
That's why I took issue with Honda being "behind" Mazda, when to me, it seems to be the other way around.
#901 of 1341 Re: Honda "behind?"[aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97] [thegraduate]
Aug 30, 2006 (12:02 pm)
You could look at it that way. I see your point, and respect it. I personally will take the extra performance over the 5 mpg.
I was almost certain the mazda 1.8L made 140+ in the mid 90's, however, I forgot the 140+ came after VV-T was added. My bad!
The previous posters initial post was so off, I had to slap something in there! lol
#902 of 1341 Re: Honda "behind?"[aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97]
Aug 30, 2006 (12:31 pm)
I understand, and the post that you had replied to was iffy on its claims, so no harm there. I can see taking the 2.3L 160 hp engine over the Civic's 1.8L 140 hp for a 5 or 6MPG drop, but I guess you and I differ on the 2.0L 148hp Mazda vs. the 1.8L 140 hp Civic. 8 horses isn't much to me, but 5 MPG is (college budget here). But, I have no room to talk on wanting the lesser-mileage car. I drive an Accord that gets 24/34mpg (although I frequently get above 35 MPG on trips).
At 6'4", I couldn't handle a compact nearly as well as I could the much larger Accord. I actually loved the styling of the Civic, inside and out (not everyone does, which is ok), but I fit better in the "ole man car" Accord much more comfortably.
#903 of 1341 Re: Honda "behind?"[aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97]
Sep 06, 2006 (2:49 pm)
Actually the Protege ES, which was the top of the line had 122 HP. 140 was from the limited edition MP3. Most HP any Protege had was 130 and that was 2001 and beyond. Thank you very much.
#904 of 1341 Rewriting history ...
Sep 07, 2006 (8:06 am)
Before the Mazda3 there was the Protege.
The 2002-2003 ProtegeES and Protege5 both delivered 130 hp. The turbo of the Mazdaspeed Protege bumped up that number to 170hp.
Mazda is using the turbo once again to pump up its horsepower numbers to the 250hp range for its current Mazdaspeed3, Mazdaspeed6 and the CX7.
#905 of 1341 Re: Honda "behind?"[aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97] [carfanatic007]
Sep 07, 2006 (8:57 am)
The 1.8L 142hp Mazda engine thegrad and I were referring to was the 1.8L placed in the MX-5 Miata. No reference was made to the Protege, which made 130hp.
Most HP any Protege had was 130 and that was 2001 and beyond.
The 2003.5 Mazdaspeed Protege was a 2.0L Turbo with 170hp. Thank you very much.
#906 of 1341 Re: Honda "behind?"[aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97] [thegraduate] [aviboy97] [carfanatic007] [aviboy97]
Sep 14, 2006 (9:47 pm)
Was not talking about a turbo Mazda Protege, the standard one was 122 on the EX which was the max until 2001, when they had 130. Mazdaspeed protege was limited in production that is why I didn't mention it. The MP3 Protege had 140.