Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#1133840 12/17/04 11:53 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 648
L
Veteran CEG\'er
OP Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 648
I was just looking around and found some of these numbers to be pretty interesting...

2004-2005 Mazda 3 s


Base price : $16,405 Get a free price quote

Engine : 4 cylinder, DOHC, front engine FWD
Displacement : 2,260 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-spd manual, 4-spd automatic
Fuel economy : city - 24-25 mpg
highway - 29-32 mpg

Suspension : F - Independent MacPherson strut
R - Independent multilink
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Solid discs

Horsepower : 160 hp @ 6500 rpm
Torque : 150 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Redline : 6500 rpm

Top speed : 118 mph(electronically limited)
0-60 mph : 7.5 sec.(manual), 8.0 sec.(auto)
0-�¼ mile : 15.7 sec @ 89.0 mph(manual)

60-0 braking distance : 125 ft
200 ft skidpad : 0.86 g

Curb Weight : 2826-2857 lbs
Overall length : 176.6 in.
Wheelbase : 103.9 in.
Overall Width : 69.1 in.
Height : 57.7 in.


1998 Contour SVT

Engine Configuration Transversely mounted, 60-degree V6, cast aluminum block and heads, iron cylinder liners, fully counterweighted forged crankshaft
Bore x Stroke 82.4 mm x 79.0 mm
Compression Ratio 10.0:1
Redline 6,750 (fuel shut-off at 7,000 rpm)
Valvetrain Dual overhead chain-driven cams, roller finger followers with hydraulic lash adjustment, ovate-wire beehive springs, four valves per cylinder
Fuel System Sequential electronic fuel injection
Transaxle MTX-75 five-speed manual
1st Gear Ratio 3.42 with 35 mph max. speed
2nd Gear Ratio 2.14 with 56 mph max. speed
3rd Gear Ratio 1.45 with 82 mph max. speed
4th Gear Ratio 1.03 with 117 mph max. speed
5th Gear Ratio 0.77 with 143 mph max. speed
Suspension, front MacPherson struts, lower A-arms, coil springs, tube shock dampers, stabilizer bar
Suspension, rear Independent Quadralink design, coil springs, tube shock dampers, stabilizer bar
Steering Gear Ratio 14.5:1
Steering, turns lock to lock 2.7
Wheelbase 106.5
Length 183.9
Height 54.5
Width 69.1
Track, f/r 59.2 in./58.5 in.
Curb Weight 3,068
Acceleration, 0-60 mph 7.9 seconds
Quarter-mile 15.7 seconds @ 88 mph
Top Speed 143 mph
Braking, 60-0 130 ft.



PRIME-TOUR You're fired! I write the books here! ~Tom~
#1133841 12/18/04 05:41 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,016
K
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
K
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,016
WB-CapCEGer chimes in:

I've driven the 3s in both auto and manual a few times and they aren't anywhere near as quick as my CSVT. I doubt that 7.5 0-60 time as well unless you have a PERFECT launch. My stock FSVT can easily handle one 0-60. I'm actually very disappointed in the 3s, styling wise and performance. Also, .86 on the skidpad? I didn't trust those things to handle that well. I think I may be the only one on CEG that's not impressed with the 3 at all.


2006 Mazdaspeed6 1997 Yamaha YZF1000R Thunderace 1996 Volvo 850-R
#1133842 12/18/04 12:49 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,746
J
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
J
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,746
The times you listed for the CSVT are slightly conservative as well.


"...first he's gonna s*!t, then he's gonna kill us." 1999 Contour SVT Retrojunk.com
#1133843 12/18/04 04:42 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 648
L
Veteran CEG\'er
OP Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 648
sorry to hear that you are disappointed with the 3 Koko. I have nothing bad to say about it. I think it handles better and I know its alot faster than my old auto Zetec. I was actually just talking to Pete yesterday and he was telling me how you test drove both the 3 & the 6. See I test drove both of them as well. I test drove the 6i though and not the S. Both were manual and I felt the 6 was very sluggish and unresponsive. It may just have been that specific car but I was quite disappointed. With me posting these numbers...it was kinda neat to see how the numbers of the 3 were pretty similar to the CSVT.


PRIME-TOUR You're fired! I write the books here! ~Tom~
#1133844 12/18/04 07:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,016
K
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
K
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,016
Originally posted by LUK A LYK:
sorry to hear that you are disappointed with the 3 Koko. I have nothing bad to say about it. I think it handles better and I know its alot faster than my old auto Zetec. I was actually just talking to Pete yesterday and he was telling me how you test drove both the 3 & the 6. See I test drove both of them as well. I test drove the 6i though and not the S. Both were manual and I felt the 6 was very sluggish and unresponsive. It may just have been that specific car but I was quite disappointed. With me posting these numbers...it was kinda neat to see how the numbers of the 3 were pretty similar to the CSVT.




I don't know, it's not that I hate the 3, I just think it's not all that really. I to drove the 6i and 6s, I had the same impression you had about them. I even wanted to give the 3s, and 6s another chance so I went to the Mazda Rev It Up with Moxy and even driving them in tracklike conditions, I was even less impressed. The 6s was a pig in the turns, the 3 actually handled better. The didn't have a 5spd 3 for me to beat on though. All in all, they are decent cars as I love Mazdas, but not decent enough to get me to buy them.


2006 Mazdaspeed6 1997 Yamaha YZF1000R Thunderace 1996 Volvo 850-R
#1133845 12/18/04 07:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
G
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
G
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Cap CEG Troll #2:

1. Comparing a 5+ year-old car vs a new car is apples to oranges

2. Comparing the CSVT vs 3 based only a your experience w/ a Zetec makes zero sense

3. As others have stated, the CSVT #s you posted are generous - stock CSVTs have run low 15s

Regardless, the CSVT will thrash the 3. Check how they hold their own / outperform cars that cost $10k in AutoX.

Thank you and have a nice day!


Capitol CEG Classifieds Make an offer! 2005 GTO IBM - 337hp/336tq
#1133846 12/18/04 08:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,016
K
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
K
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,016
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
Cap CEG Troll #2:

1. Comparing a 5+ year-old car vs a new car is apples to oranges

2. Comparing the CSVT vs 3 based only a your experience w/ a Zetec makes zero sense

3. As others have stated, the CSVT #s you posted are generous - stock CSVTs have run low 15s

Regardless, the CSVT will thrash the 3. Check how they hold their own / outperform cars that cost $10k in AutoX.

Thank you and have a nice day!




Exactly. My 5 year old CSVT will trounce a 3s anytime, and any stock 6s in AutoX.


2006 Mazdaspeed6 1997 Yamaha YZF1000R Thunderace 1996 Volvo 850-R
#1133847 12/18/04 10:51 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,100
M
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
M
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,100
Originally posted by Kokopellian:
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
Cap CEG WantaBe:

1. Comparing a 5+ year-old car vs a new car is apples to oranges

2. Comparing the CSVT vs 3 based only a your experience w/ a Zetec makes zero sense

3. As others have stated, the CSVT #s you posted are generous - stock CSVTs have run low 15s

Regardless, the CSVT will thrash the 3. Check how they hold their own / outperform cars that cost $10k in AutoX.

Thank you and have a nice day!




Exactly. My 5 year old CSVT will trounce a 3s anytime, and any stock 6s in AutoX.




Not if you are driving your CSVT and some of the local 6s guys are driving the 6s.

This 6s is not quite stock (intake, springs, and sway bar) but he would kill you in AutoX.

http://www.moxnix.org/Car/AutoX/Vid/Crossroads%20Autox/Bill%20run%201.mpg

I know of a few other 6s drivers and even one 6i driver that would kill your car in AutoX.

For anybody that does not belive me I invite you out to some of the AutoX events next year to run and see.


Beaten - 2003 MazdaSpeed Protege 29K <- broken hearted Daily/Weekend Beater - 1990 miata 138K - AutoX every weekend = Adult driven on weekends
#1133848 12/18/04 11:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,016
K
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
K
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,016
Originally posted by moxnix:
Originally posted by Kokopellian:
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
Cap CEG Troll #2:

1. Comparing a 5+ year-old car vs a new car is apples to oranges

2. Comparing the CSVT vs 3 based only a your experience w/ a Zetec makes zero sense

3. As others have stated, the CSVT #s you posted are generous - stock CSVTs have run low 15s

Regardless, the CSVT will thrash the 3. Check how they hold their own / outperform cars that cost $10k in AutoX.

Thank you and have a nice day!




Exactly. My 5 year old CSVT will trounce a 3s anytime, and any stock 6s in AutoX.




Not if you are driving your CSVT and some of the local 6s guys are driving the 6s.




Dammit Shawn (yes I used your name) I told you to stop harrassing me! There is room enough here for two trolls.

Besides, yeah AutoX is a driver's race, but a stock CSVT will out handle a 6s, that's an undeniable fact. Even better, mod the suspensions and the CSVT will still come out on top. You ever ride in Pete's? The ONLY car I've ridden in that corners better than his was a Porsche, and even then it would still be close. Pete had the 19s, Konis and Coilovers. We took a 90 degree turn at 40+ mph, the rear just slid around like he was handbraking. I've NEVER seen even a modded 6 come close to that.


2006 Mazdaspeed6 1997 Yamaha YZF1000R Thunderace 1996 Volvo 850-R
#1133849 12/18/04 11:23 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
G
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
G
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Sorry Shawn, but you are wrong primarily due to one statement you made:
Originally posted by moxnix:
I know of a few other 6s drivers and even one 6i driver that would kill your car in AutoX.




Not a chance in hell the CSVT gets "killed". That's a ridiculous statement when it's proven that CSVTs are surprising people and regularly competing with and beating cars that cost $10k+ more, and cars that are supposed to be so great at AutoX.

That video was lame. There is no basis for comparison. See above statement again.

I've driven the 6 and IMO in stock form:
Acceleration: 6 - slightly
Handling: CSVT - hands down, no contest
Braking: couldn't really do much w/ the lame salesman in there
Shifting: CSVT, easily. Clutch and shifting are more driver friendly than the 6.
Driver visibility: CSVT

So you're telling me that a car that barely out-accelerates a CSVT, but lacks in every other department is going to "kill" a CSVT? For a interesting discussion, why don't you post that in General Discussion to see what everyone else thinks?

The 6 in my eyes can be an upgrade when modified to handle like something other than a boat. By today's standards of new cars, the 6 is severely underpowered and handles very poorly - reminds me of a A4. That being said and considering how much a loaded 6 goes for ( ), I'd rather buy a blown SVT, drop in a 3 liter with all the goodies and pocket the $15+k.

I understand you have "Mazda Fever" now, but I did not realize you were literally blinded by it to make such ridiculous statements! Don't be bitter your Contour died. It's not the car's fault that you neglected it so badly!


Capitol CEG Classifieds Make an offer! 2005 GTO IBM - 337hp/336tq
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Andy W._dup1, GTO Pete 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5