why the 2.3L instead of the V-6?

dmitrik4 · Oct 13, 2004

why didn't mazda turbo the V6 instead of the 2.3?

i was asked this question and couldn't come up w/ a technically-based answer. i thought it was b/c the 2.3 was a stronger engine, but that doesn't seem to be the case (e.g., 2.3L has a cast crank while the V6's is forged).

?

thanks!

Mike R · Oct 13, 2004

Too much power! They don't have a drivetrain that could handle a turbo 6.

dmitrik4 · Oct 13, 2004

is that an actual reason, or a guess?

why couldn't they have tuned a turbo 6 to be 274hp/280lb-ft?

IIRC, the drivetrain is the same as that in the volvo S60R, which is 300/300. ???

Mike R · Oct 13, 2004

Dunno, that was a guess....the drivetrain is also the same as the jag.

Powells85 · Oct 13, 2004

Lack of room in the engine bay?

Mikey444 · Oct 13, 2004

3.0 liter turbo, you do the Math, no one wants a car that burns a bitching amount of gas, and anyways, do you really need more than 274 horsepower for that type of car.

mdaj · Oct 13, 2004

Among many reasons the 2.3l is a global engine. The V6, I assume, is only for the American market. Why provide two complete engine choices for the Speed 6 when its going to lose money? Therefore, Mazda used the turbo four since it can adapt to all markets and cost much less than that of a turbo 6 that will only be available for the american market.

ZoomZoomH · Oct 13, 2004

plus, IIRC, only the Flat Rock, MI plant has the capacity to build the V6 Mazda6's, while ALL MS6 WILL be built in Japan.... doesn't make sense to add extra tooling cost for a limited production car...

sjimmy · Oct 13, 2004

This is my theory. Mazda chose the 2.3 for a number of reasons. One being that the v6 currently in the mazda 6 S is on it's way out I believe because Ford is making a new V6. Aside from that, Mazda intends on making a Mazdaspeed 3 I believe. If you're a car compnay and you want to make the most profit you try to use the same engine more than in one car. So mazda can just detune the the 2.3 by say lowering the boost and it'll workout fine. Also the 2.3 is goin to be used in many cars ford has control of i believe so they're advancing the engine.

crossbow · Oct 13, 2004

The reason mazda turbo'd the 2.3 liter is only because they already had an AWD system setup for that particular engine in europe. They just took the same system and plopped another 140+ ft/lbs of torque into it. (eurospec Mazda 6s (2.3 liter Euro) is AWD)

Going with an AWD system on the V6 would have required a redesign of the AWD system...work smarter not harder.

dmitrik4 · Oct 13, 2004

ok, i can buy that. thanks.

Shane5425 · Oct 13, 2004

sjimmy said:
This is my theory. Mazda chose the 2.3 for a number of reasons. One being that the v6 currently in the mazda 6 S is on it's way out I believe because Ford is making a new V6. Aside from that, Mazda intends on making a Mazdaspeed 3 I believe. If you're a car compnay and you want to make the most profit you try to use the same engine more than in one car. So mazda can just detune the the 2.3 by say lowering the boost and it'll workout fine. Also the 2.3 is goin to be used in many cars ford has control of i believe so they're advancing the engine.

so i am guessin a common mod for the MS3 will be to put a MS6 ECU to get allot more power... hehe can you say 300hp 3.. all i can say is damn..

rx7gslse · Oct 13, 2004

crossbow said:
The reason mazda turbo'd the 2.3 liter is only because they already had an AWD system setup for that particular engine in europe. They just took the same system and plopped another 140+ ft/lbs of torque into it. (eurospec Mazda 6s (2.3 liter Euro) is AWD)

Going with an AWD system on the V6 would have required a redesign of the AWD system...work smarter not harder.

good theory, but you forget that the Tribute is already AWD with that same V6 motor... No redesign needed..

crossbow · Oct 13, 2004

Except for the fact that the Tribute and Mazda 6 are built on entirely different platforms. (and Chassis's)

The AWD on the euro wagon was on a Mazda 6 (2.3 Liter L3)...plug and play baby. Well not plug n play...but would be easier then porting the system.

I mean if they wanted to just port a system, they would have snagged the awesome Jaguar X-type AWD...which is a 40:60 split and mounts right up to the Duratec 3.0 Liter V6.

lasermp5 · Oct 13, 2004

they went with the 2.3 as to not totally discredit the protege

Foolish · Oct 14, 2004

Besides, don't you have to twin-turbo a V-6? Two turbos would cost much more $$$!

I could be wrong, it's happened before.

dmitrik4 · Oct 14, 2004

it's happened again.

you can run a V6 off a single turbo...the number of cylinder banks has nothing to do w/ it.

Foolish · Oct 14, 2004

dmitrik4 said:
it's happened again.

you can run a V6 off a single turbo...the number of cylinder banks has nothing to do w/ it.

Fair enough. I've seen single turbo I6's (supra) and twin turbo V-6's, so I made a leap of logic that you needed two turbos for V-engines. So do they just run the turbo off of one exhaust manifold?

Did I mention I dropped out of auto mechanic's school?

Mike R · Oct 14, 2004

They just use a y pipe from both manifolds to connect to one turbo.

vindication · Oct 14, 2004

Like stated before the 2.3T is gonna be sold world wide and the only country that uses bigger engines is America. They would probably loose money on having two different platforms. Also, the MS3 will most likely have 2.0T and if each and everyone of us pray hard enough, it might be in WRC.

why the 2.3L instead of the V-6?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

...of Awesometon

Member

...of Awesometon

Member

Missing my Protege

Similar threads