0-60 or 1/4 mile times anyone?

Mazoku · Nov 30, 2003

Hello, new member here.

Well, I went into the dealer today and drove a hatchback with 3 miles on it. I like.

I haven't been able to find any 0-60 or 1.4 mile times for the 2.3L tho... I'm just curious how it stacks up to my 200SX SE-R...although the 3 has 20 more HP it weighs 200lbs more...

Both cars are automatic...the SE-R shifts alot rougher than the 3's extremely smooth shifting, I think thats giving me a false sense of speed.

Also, I'm wondering if the 3 has a limited slip differential or anything similar? My 200SX is much better in the rain than my old Civic (without LSD) was, I'm wondering how the 3 would stack up against them in that aspect.

Overall it doesn't matter too much tho, I've still got my heart set on a 3.

Mazda3s · Nov 30, 2003

The January 2004 Car & Driver had this to say:
"Equipped with the five-speed manual and the 2.3-liter engine, our tester did the 0-to-60 dash in 7.4 seconds, covered the quarter-mile in 16 seconds flat at 87 mph, and attained 100 mph in 22.8 seconds." They go on to say "the car pulled 0.87 g on the skidpad, a distinct improvement on the 0.79 g showing by the Protege5 back in 2002 and more consistent with sports cars than econoboxes. A 70-to-0-mph braking distance of 169 feet is like-wise exceptional."
Sweeeeeeet!!!

Mazoku · Nov 30, 2003

Thanks alot for the info!

Dre · Nov 30, 2003

I imagine it's a mid 15's car with a good driver. Car and Driver sucks.

Mazda3 · Nov 30, 2003

Modernracer.com posted a time of 15.7@89.6 MPH in the 5spd 2.3L

dmitrik4 · Dec 2, 2003

Dre said:
I imagine it's a mid 15's car with a good driver. Car and Driver sucks.

are you just following around the "C&D" threads?

from what i've noticed over the years, C&D pretty consistently has some of the lowest times. i'd be surprised if most other mags did much better.

besides, with a power-weight ratio of 18.9 lbs/hp, mid 15's might be a stretch.

Dre · Dec 2, 2003

dmitrik4 said:
are you just following around the "C&D" threads?

from what i've noticed over the years, C&D pretty consistently has some of the lowest times. i'd be surprised if most other mags did much better.

besides, with a power-weight ratio of 18.9 lbs/hp, mid 15's might be a stretch.

No, I'm basing this on experience. I've driven many cars (and bikes), from Porsche to VW, from Chevette to Corvette. I have an idea of how cars work. Thank you.

Mazda3 · Dec 3, 2003

dmitrik4,

Did you read my post?

15.7 has already been done.

dmitrik4 · Dec 3, 2003

sure did read it. and as i said, mid-15's is probably the best you're going to get out of a car w/ that power-weight. where's our disagreement?

as far as comparing the two, it's really a waste of time.
what kinds of methods and equipment does "modernracer" use?
do they average runs, or take the best one?
do they correct to some standard environmental conditions or did they test on a cooler day than C&D?
was their track surface grippier?

dre, i know how cars work too. congratulations.

i'm not sure where you're going with that...that has what to do with either C&D or the 3's 1/4 mile times?

Dre · Dec 3, 2003

Bah, nevermind.

Mazda3 · Dec 3, 2003

dmitrik4 said:
sure did read it. and as i said, mid-15's is probably the best you're going to get out of a car w/ that power-weight. where's our disagreement?

as far as comparing the two, it's really a waste of time.
what kinds of methods and equipment does "modernracer" use?
do they average runs, or take the best one?
do they correct to some standard environmental conditions or did they test on a cooler day than C&D?
was their track surface grippier?

dre, i know how cars work too. congratulations. i'm not sure where you're going with that...that has what to do with either C&D or the 3's 1/4 mile times?

I thought you were saying no one would beat C&D's 16 flat time. I was just pointing out that it had already been beaten.
C&D doesn't post fast times from what I've read. They ran a 15.5 in the Mazdaspeed, Motortrend ran 14.9 and 15.1 in two seperate tests.C&d ran 17.2 in the 2.0L Protege, I can run well into the 16's in that car anyday. Anyway 15.7 is about what I expected the 3 would do.

toucci · Dec 3, 2003

C&D has some great drivers and some old fogeys

deceptikwan · Dec 7, 2003

I've also noticed c/d's inconsistency.Must be due to all the combinations of driver,temperature and what not.

Kooldino · Dec 7, 2003

Dre said:
I imagine it's a mid 15's car with a good driver. Car and Driver sucks.

High 15's maybe. mid 15's is pushing it.

Birdy · Dec 11, 2003

15-16 stock isnt that bad guys
I don't even think the 3 was meant for 1/4 mile. Go to a road course or summin and have fun.
If you put an intake and maybe a better header and a good exhaust you will see gains.
maybe even put a metal intake mani on there and shave a second or 2 off.
Don't know how good that engine reacts to mods but yeah...

i would take the 3 over any car in its clas sin a heart beat oh wait i already did

i'm gonna go drive my car now

wongpres · Dec 11, 2003

Here's the performance results from the AJAC Canadian testfest.

A 2.0l Mazda3 sedan (so smaller rotors) was used for the economy car category and a 2.3l Mazda3 hatch (so larger rotors) was used for the sport sedan/coupe < $35,000 category. All these cars were tested on the same days (Oct 29-Nov 2) at the same location (around Shannonville racetrack in Ontario, Canada). As such, it's a pretty good apples-to-apples comparison between all the cars:

http://members.rogers.com/ajac/PDF/Performance_Data_2004.pdf

And for anyone who cares about the rating data:

http://members.rogers.com/ajac/PDF/ratings_summary_2004.pdf

BTW, the it sure looks like a Mazda3 will win overall Car of the Year. I'm basing this on the red values, which is a grand total that is price adjusted for each of the category winners. Because these grand totals are price adjusted, the red numbers can be compared between all of the categories, and if we do that we get:

1. Mazda3 Sport (hatch) with a Grand Total of 799.8
2. Mazda3 sedan with 764.6
3. Infiniti G35 Coupe with 742.2

Granted, they don't only use that number to determine overall car of the year, but it sure looks like a Mazda3 will be overall Canadian Car of the Year! Winner will be announced at the Canadian International autoshow in Feb.

Mazda3 · Dec 12, 2003

The performance numbers in this test are good for nothing. These guys are terrible drivers. I can't even except these as apples to apples because the drivng is to pathetic. The cars with auto trans they tested have reasonable numbers because all they had to do put there foot to the floor. The ones with manual are all over the map.

We've already seen 7.4 and 7.5 0-60 times in the Mazda 3. I can't except times 1 and a half seconds slower as anything useful. They must have been granny shifting at 4000 RPM. I don't care if they granny shifted all the cars these numbers are meaningless. They got better times with the 2.0L motor. I've driven both cars, the 2.3L version is substantially faster than the 2.0L.

No offense to you wongpres, I'm sure you could get better times if you tested it yourself

wongpres · Dec 12, 2003

Mazda3 said:
No offense to you wongpres, I'm sure you could get better times if you tested it yourself

I agree with your post to a point. Yes, I could probably do a better job.

However, to me, all performance numbers by themselves are irrelevent because it's always different conditions. But the reason I say this comparison is pretty much apples-to-apples is that all these cars were tested on the same days at the same place (again, don't know about the drivers). As such, while I may be able to get a better time than what's posted, these results are very useful in comparing to other cars (which is what's really important). Because all of the conditions are the same (again, don't know about drivers), I know that from 0-100, my Mazda3 sport will be beaten by the SRT-4 by about 2sec (that's where this data is useful).

Edit: typo

Excitmnt94 · Dec 12, 2003

damn...those have to be some of the worst numbers i have ever seen out of any test. i could probably pilot any of those cars...even the right hand drive versions to faster times than that. but considering none of those cars were driven nearly as fast as i have seen...yeah...the Mazda 3 should be about 2-2.5 seconds slower than a SRT-4...which is an eternity. i know its only neon...but damn i hate how fast it is.

Captain_Ron · Dec 13, 2003

Why just not buy the base 2.0L which is about 6-7K CND cheaper if you include taxes. So you get 148 vs 160, I think for about 2k the 148 could easily be 180hP+

0-60 or 1/4 mile times anyone?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

MOTM Winner Jan '09

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads