Mazda3

[lm723]

May binebentang Mazda3 sa Car Finder (sa taas) at P490t+ ata, as is. May bangga sa likod sa may bumper. Sayang un, if i just had the money at this time. Haaay. I love mazda3.

[number001]

May binebentang Mazda3 sa Car Finder (sa taas) at P490t+ ata, as is. May bangga sa likod sa may bumper. Sayang un, if i just had the money at this time. Haaay. I love mazda3.

http://tsikot.yehey.com/auto-classif...&cat=20&page=1

[Karding]

Actually, even with "just" a 2.0 or 1.6, as long as it has a manual transmission, the Mazda3 HB would count as spectacular.

But since it only comes in "stripped down" 1.6 AT trim here... it's just nice.

So I guess the Consumer Reports September 2006 Issue posted here in tsikot.com is irrelevant since the 1.6AT was never tested by Consumer Reports, JD Power review, kbb.com, Motor Trend, Edmunds.com, etc..

Now, I dont wanna assume that 1.6A/T performs as good as the 2.3l M/T. As well, I wouldnt say 2.0 and 2.3 is as close. If that's the case, why didn't they test a USDM 2.0 M/T as their best bang for the buck[?]

But I'd still be lucky to own/afford a Mazda3 if I was in the Philippines. And for that, I give Mazda3 and its owners :2thumbsup: and

[M]

Actually, even with "just" a 2.0 or 1.6, as long as it has a manual transmission, the Mazda3 HB would count as spectacular.

But since it only comes in "stripped down" 1.6 AT trim here... it's just nice.

i agree. if mazda came up with a M/T for the entry level hatch (read: lowest level variant), it would have been great as the chassis of the 3 was really built for solid handling.

now where is that MPS3?

[niky]

The Consumer Reports... errh... report is still relevant in issues other than acceleration. Personally, despite it being three years older, the Mazda still feels more special to drive than a Civic, although the Civic is admittedly peppier. Of course, that's just me. I wouldn't say no to either car if you gave one to me for a spin.

[Karding]

The Consumer Reports... errh... report is still relevant in issues other than acceleration. Personally, despite it being three years older, the Mazda still feels more special to drive than a Civic, although the Civic is admittedly peppier. Of course, that's just me. I wouldn't say no to either car if you gave one to me for a spin.

amf, bakit kse may "S" yung copy-n-paste na ginawa ko sa post ni parakitoJDM :evillaugh

do you think if a 2.0 or 1.6 A/T was used to compete with A3 and Saab 9-2x, it would still rank number 1? If not, then the CR wouldnt apply to Mazda3 in the Philippines.

I wouldn't say no to either car if you gave one to me for a spin.

agreed.

[niky]

Well, if it were a 2.0 or 1.6 AT, it wouldn't be a fair comparison, unless the A3 was likewise a 2.0 or a 150hp 1.8T... then it wouldn't really matter because the Mazda here costs half of what an A3 costs, so even if the A3 won, I doubt people would be running over to the dealership to buy one.

A Saab 9-2X? I'd rather have an Impreza. They should've made the 9-2X with the Subaru drivetrain and chassis and a Saab engine to differentiate it from the Impreza.

[jazon]

guys what fuel are you using for your 2.0li? im using petron blaze getting only 6 to 7 km/li

[mazdamazda]

just wond'rin: is there a chance that Mazda would put MX5's 2.0L engine in the Mazda3? its 170hp, even if they price it at, say, 1.1M; it still has a fighting chance over the Civic 2.0SL.

Actually, the new engine of the Mazda3 2.0L (150hp w/ SVT) and the Miata 2.0L (170hp w/ SVT) is the same. The difference is with the engine configuration, the latter is set for max hp output due to the lighter body & chassis (aluminum in some areas) of the Miata.

RE: Hatchback Consumer Report

Other than acceleration, that is actually applicable also here. Too bad that we are only getting Mazda3s with automatic tranny.

[pdc2]

Actually, even with "just" a 2.0 or 1.6, as long as it has a manual transmission, the Mazda3 HB would count as spectacular.

But since it only comes in "stripped down" 1.6 AT trim here... it's just nice.

wouldn't the activematic a/t count to make our 1.6 Mazda 3HB spectacular?

[lm723]

I want a mazda3!

[basti08]

Actually, the new engine of the Mazda3 2.0L (150hp w/ SVT) and the Miata 2.0L (170hp w/ SVT) is the same. The difference is with the engine configuration, the latter is set for max hp output due to the lighter body & chassis (aluminum in some areas) of the Miata.

shouldnt the Mazda3, with its heavier body & chassis, have a taste of this engine which is set for more power?

[Karding]

Well, if it were a 2.0 or 1.6 AT, it wouldn't be a fair comparison, unless the A3 was likewise a 2.0 or a 150hp 1.8T... then it wouldn't really matter because the Mazda here costs half of what an A3 costs, so even if the A3 won, I doubt people would be running over to the dealership to buy one.

A Saab 9-2X? I'd rather have an Impreza. They should've made the 9-2X with the Subaru drivetrain and chassis and a Saab engine to differentiate it from the Impreza.

it wouldnt really matter, exactly my point the entire time.

not a fair comparison? so lets not compare Phil Mazda3 to USDM Mazda3. It wouldnt be fair to A3, Saab 9-2x, Toyota Matrix, or even the Prius owners :bwahaha:

of course people wouldnt be running to buy the A3. the truth of the matter is, people already own the vehicles tested. I see it as a bragging rights or another type of self re-assurance that their Mazda3 [2.3l] is ahead of the A3.

the sad part of the CR magazine is that they used the 2.3l that Philippines does not offer. We would never know if what the Phil Mazda3 ranks higher than the A3 or Saab 9-2x. Maybe some of you can ask the C! magazine to run a test? :evillaugh

RE: Saab 9-2x engine and Suby tranny

I'm not too familiar with Saab but I prefer to use the Suby engine and Saab tranny due to WRX's infamous glass tranny.

WRX tranny? STi tranny?

long live the Saabaru!

[kurt]

is the mazda3's 1.6 engine good enough vs the altis's. i know its weaker on paper but maybe its a good performer in real world use.

is it a new engine design. with technology comparable to i-vtec or vvti.

thanks

[kurt]

2.0L vs 1.6L, am i reading the specs correctly? the 1.6 has S-VT while the 2.0 has none. so the 1.6 is more "advanced" than the 2.0 engine.

mazda's SVT is comparable to VVti and I-vtec, right?

[parakitoJDM]

2.0L vs 1.6L, am i reading the specs correctly? the 1.6 has S-VT while the 2.0 has none. so the 1.6 is more "advanced" than the 2.0 engine.

mazda's SVT is comparable to VVti and I-vtec, right?

at its current state yes, the next MZR2.0 for Ph should pick-up the SVT as the rest of the world had. but take note its still got VIS (Variable Induction System). Which means during low engine speed, air passage is thru a longer path to provide higher torque and during hi RPM it opens another pathway to make it shorter and help provide better Power as well. i think Mazda's SVT and Toyota's VVTi doesn;t have the Valve Lift control as VTEC's. but one dis-advantage of B & R series VTEC engines is that they operate as "ON" and "OFF" mode only.

[M]

RE: Hatchback Consumer Report

Other than acceleration, that is actually applicable also here. Too bad that we are only getting Mazda3s with automatic tranny.

actually, the heavier 2.3L engine greatly affects the balance of the car. a side by side test between a 1.6L (lowest model) and the 2.3L (highest model) proved this point, and handling was also affected likewise, which is the most common plus or ace of the mazda3 over it's rivals.

can't remember where i read that review though. sa autocar yata.

[niky]

The lightest car of the range is usually the most fun to steer, if not necessarily the fastest... that is, unless the top-of-the-line has a different suspension setting.

Reason being, the smaller the engine on a front-wheel drive car, the closer the weight balance is to optimal. For a 2.3-2.5 liter compact, expect weight distribution to be 65:35 (front/rear), 2.0 - 62:38, 1.6 - 60:40, 1.3 - 56:44 (???).

Of course, most BMW addicts will tell you that that's nothing compared to the "perfect" 50:50 of their Bimmers. When they do, ask them how a 1.6, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.0 turbodiesel (which is ungodly heavy) all provide the same weight balance on the same car. Even on BMWs, some reviewers note that the balance of the 1.6 and 2.0 versions is much livelier than on the most powerful ones.

That's why I loved my old Sentra FE. It was slow, it was a gas-guzzler, and it was an absolute blast to take to Tagaytay. I think M2 has similar stories about the Lynx LSi.

---

RE: Subaru tranny, hadn't thought of that. I did hear stories, but it slipped my mind. How about, a Subaru chassis, Saab tranny and engine (FWD) and Subaru turbos? A FWD Saab turbo wagon with 250 hp would be more special than a mere Saabaru rebadge. :lol:

[basti08]

the 65/35 f/r weight distribution for the 2.3L is absurd. that's too front bias.

Mazda3 2.3L hatch: Weight distribution, F/R: 60.3/39.7%

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...a-3-page3.html

for me the 1.6-2.0Liters should have (in my guess) 57.9/42.1, 59.1/40.9, respectively....something close to that. even 55/45 belongs to a FR set-up...there's no way for a FF to have a weight distribution close an FR, for having a front engine, front drive and a battery mounted upfront.

[Bravoexo]

http://www.mazda.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...3_Brochure.pdf

Check out the UK brochiere, 51-52%/48-49% ata for the 1.6, hatch and sedan. Ang difference ng hatch sa sedan is 20lbs sa rear axle.