I am a bit disappointed...

G

goldwing2000

Turd in the punch bowl
:
2004 Mazda3s Hatch; 269,000 miles
I am seriously dissappointed...

... with the straight-line performance of this car. (drive)

I made like 6 or 7 runs yesterday and the best 1/4-mile time I could manage was 16.271. Had two more around the same area (16.283 & 16.284) and the rest sucked even worse (16.360 - 16.8**).

All the speeds were about 85-86mph and my reaction times ranged from .186 to .6-something on a zero tree (that sucks, I know... gimme a break... I haven't raced this track since 1990 {on a bike} and I haven't raced ANY track since about 1993).

The first few runs I had too much traction and bogged at the line (32psi, launching at ~4,000 rpms).

The later runs I didn't have enough traction and burned through 1st gear until it bounced off the rev limiter and I had to slam 2nd (34psi@~4,500).

If I can get my reaction times better and somehow get the right traction, I might break into the 15s. But, really, even 15s suck. There was some kid there with an old 1.8L Escort (bone stock) that he pulled out of a junkyard, stripped the interior and trailered out there... he was running 16.2s, too. Talk about embarrassing. (eek2)

Damn... I really thought this thing would be quicker than that. Not to mention all the heinous smashing sounds coming from the front suspension and motor mounts.

*sigh* (ripped)

Maybe I'll trade it in, now.... :(
 
Car and Driver said:
Let's talk about those getaways. 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
Click to expand...

Looks like you didn't do bad!! (thumb)
 
Bad performance

There are problems with the delivery of the 160 hp on this car. I'm not saying that something is broken, I'm saying that some of the parts responsible to transfer the power to the ground are not either well designed or well suited for the engine/car. You just have to think about the 0-60 of this car and you immediately see that there is a problem. 8.8 sec (or 8.6 as I saw in a couple of articles) for a 160 hp little car like that is too slow. The major reason I can see (and I'm not an expert at all) is the gear box. The second gear is too long. If you test your car a little bit as goldwing did, you will see that even though you wait to be in very high revs to pass the 2nd gear, when you release the clutch, you will see the revs go very low and you will not have a lot of power until you go back into the power range of the engine. I talked to the owner of a performance shop, the guy looks like he knows what he is doing, and he was agree with me that the 0-60 on this car is not very good. If you have a performance shop near by that you can trust, go there and ask them to try your car, they will be able to tell you which mods to do to increase the speed of your car. It's not only the power delivered by the engine that's important, the way that power is transfered to the wheels is even more important.

We have to remember that it's still only a 4 bangers, and an engine with more cylinders (if it's well built) will always give you a lot more torque and a lot lower 0-60 or 1/4 mile.
 
pdhaudio83 said:
Looks like you didn't do bad!! (thumb)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Pat.

While I was somewhat disappointed with my performance, the car's lackluster showing is what really has me bummed.

After the adreneline wore off yesterday, I was like, "Well, THAT sucked."

Oh well... live and learn.
 
Many people have got into the mid 15's on the 3 board , one person in fact hit a 15.3. Try lowering the pressure in your tires.
 
Those are similar to stock times I have read in car mags......



goldwing2000 said:
... with the straight-line performance of this car. (drive)

I made like 6 or 7 runs yesterday and the best 1/4-mile time I could manage was 16.271. Had two more around the same area (16.283 & 16.284) and the rest sucked even worse (16.360 - 16.8**).

All the speeds were about 85-86mph and my reaction times ranged from .186 to .6-something on a zero tree (that sucks, I know... gimme a break... I haven't raced this track since 1990 {on a bike} and I haven't raced ANY track since about 1993).

The first few runs I had too much traction and bogged at the line (32psi, launching at ~4,000 rpms).

The later runs I didn't have enough traction and burned through 1st gear until it bounced off the rev limiter and I had to slam 2nd (34psi@~4,500).

If I can get my reaction times better and somehow get the right traction, I might break into the 15s. But, really, even 15s suck. There was some kid there with an old 1.8L Escort (bone stock) that he pulled out of a junkyard, stripped the interior and trailered out there... he was running 16.2s, too. Talk about embarrassing. (eek2)

Damn... I really thought this thing would be quicker than that. Not to mention all the heinous smashing sounds coming from the front suspension and motor mounts.

*sigh* (ripped)

Maybe I'll trade it in, now.... :(
Click to expand...
 
It bogged at 30 psi, so I dunno if going lower will help. Maybe, though. I was running out of time, so I couldn't do much experimenting and my times kept getting worse and worse, so I didn't see much point in it.

I remember seeing that guy with the 15.3. Wasn't he in Australia or something?

Anyway, hopefully I can get someone to go with me next time. Then I can take out all the extra weight (spare tire & jack, cargo system, etc). That's gotta be at least 100 lbs of crap.
 
Protege52003 said:
Those are similar to stock times I have read in car mags......
Click to expand...

True enough but I had hoped to get better, since it's not completely stock. A CAI should have netted me at least a tenth or two and the lowered suspension should have helped with launches and wind drag.

It's funny... I can go out right now buy a Mach I Mustang on A-Plan from Varsity Ford in Ann Arbor for $26,470 and run 13s all day long. :rolleyes:
 
goldwing2000 said:
It's funny... I can go out right now buy a Mach I Mustang on A-Plan from Varsity Ford in Ann Arbor for $26,470 and run 13s all day long. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
then try to trade it in a year later and hope to get half of that ;)
 
goldwing2000 said:
True enough but I had hoped to get better, since it's not completely stock. A CAI should have netted me at least a tenth or two and the lowered suspension should have helped with launches and wind drag.

It's funny... I can go out right now buy a Mach I Mustang on A-Plan from Varsity Ford in Ann Arbor for $26,470 and run 13s all day long. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
gross Ann Arbor
 
Im just saying...A guy on here just recently sold his GT that retailed for around $30K new, and was hard pressed to get $15K for it a year later(shrug)
 
No offense, but that guy must have been a dumbass. Looking at Autotrader, they are going for a lot more than $15k!

I wouldn't do it, anyway. I think any of the latest Moose-Tangs are frickin' butt-ugly.

The new '05s are sweet, though. (2thumbs)
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
I went to the dragstrip today..
Replies
15
Views
1K
SharkDiver
S
D
EBC Greenstuff Disappointment...Considering Wilwood Big Brake Upgrade...
Replies
10
Views
3K
Minimazda
M
M
First Post-Newbie-Why am I having soo much trouble finding a Mazda2 in my area?
Replies
17
Views
3K
Mazda2Dozo
M

Latest posts

Back