|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 503
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 503 |
Originally posted by Tourige:
Anyone who considers why they bought the SVT contour shouldent really be raggin on the MS6, basically its the same car in a different era, short run production, fast, in a class of its own, barly no competitor, small styling ques, leather, 6 speed(5 for SVT). IMO its a natural progression up from an SVT.
Very true and it would be on top of my practical car dream list but for one thing: its got a 4cyl. For me, I will never buy a 4cyl car, especially when it can be had with a V6. Why not turbo the 3.0L and get some more hp? I just like 6 waaaay more than 4.
95 LX-with a mind of its own
24v DOHC
SVT exhaust and K&N=all thats worth modding
Go Fighting Sioux!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Originally posted by Teenage Contour:
Originally posted by Tourige:
Anyone who considers why they bought the SVT contour shouldent really be raggin on the MS6, basically its the same car in a different era, short run production, fast, in a class of its own, barly no competitor, small styling ques, leather, 6 speed(5 for SVT). IMO its a natural progression up from an SVT.
Very true and it would be on top of my practical car dream list but for one thing: its got a 4cyl. For me, I will never buy a 4cyl car, especially when it can be had with a V6. Why not turbo the 3.0L and get some more hp? I just like 6 waaaay more than 4.
There are numerous reasons why Mazda didn't go with a 6-Cylinder.
1> The #1 reasons is that the MazdaSpeed is sold world-wide with virtually no changes. There is little demand for V6's outside of the US, the standard Mazda6 doesn't even get one outside of North America.
2> Gas mileage with a turbo-4 is WAY better than with a turbo-6. It gets better mileage than my N/A V6 gets, despite having 20% more HP, 50% more Torque, and an AWD drivetrain.
3> There's a whole lot more proven reliability with turbo-4s than there are V6s.
4> This new MZR is going to be a backbone for Mazda for a long-time to come, hence why Mazda could afford to sink so much money into it for such a small run of cars. The MZR was designed to accept Direct Injection and pollutes significantly less, the Duratec30 is old and out-dated in this regard and not worth updating since it's being replaced. The Duratec35 would be a candidate, but not the 30.
5> The AWD drivetrain that Mazda is using, one that it already had to save costs, is not designed for as much power as Mazda is giving it now. It had to be significantly strengthened and water-cooled to handle the power. There's no way it could have handled the power from a turbo'd V6.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867 |
Originally posted by Teenage Contour:
Originally posted by Tourige:
Anyone who considers why they bought the SVT contour shouldent really be raggin on the MS6, basically its the same car in a different era, short run production, fast, in a class of its own, barly no competitor, small styling ques, leather, 6 speed(5 for SVT). IMO its a natural progression up from an SVT.
Very true and it would be on top of my practical car dream list but for one thing: its got a 4cyl. For me, I will never buy a 4cyl car, especially when it can be had with a V6. Why not turbo the 3.0L and get some more hp? I just like 6 waaaay more than 4.
HP costs money. How fast do you want to spend?
If I were on the design team I think it would have been a choice between a larger N/A powerplant or a smaller one with forced induction. The second choice has its advantages, as noted above.
If I were buying a new car today, I'd definitely have to look at it. I mean, I like the Evo and the STi, but I'm not a kid anymore, you know?
Function before fashion.
'96 Contour SE
"Toss the Contour into a corner, and it's as easy to catch as a softball thrown by a preschooler." -Edmunds, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,475
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,475 |
My beefs with the MSP-6: - The AWD system sends 100% of the power to the front wheels until it detects slip, and then can transfer a certain percentage to the rear, and is 100% compuer controlled. It's more like "FWD plus"  - Sorry folks, but I think the car is fugly looking. If you want to see what the MSP-6 SHOULD have looked like, check out the Mazda 6 MPS  - Alhough I understand the practical reasons for the turbo-four over the 3.0 duratec, I prefer the sounds and character of a 6-cyl engine. I'll wait until Ford comes out with a High-po SVT Fusion with 3.5, and stick a turbo on that.  And finally, for the same price as a loaded MSP-6, I could get a G35 6MT sedan, with a 300HP VQ engine. Fugg AWD and get some snow tires - RWD is more fun anyways! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
- The AWD system sends 100% of the power to the front wheels until it detects slip, and then can transfer a certain percentage to the rear, and is 100% compuer controlled. It's more like "FWD plus"
People don't seem to care that the Mitsubishi EVO does the exact same thing. No one calls Mitsu's system "FWD Plus" as the EVO stomps the crap out of evirtually everything on the road.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,725
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,725 |
Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
Originally posted by baco99:
i'd still prefer to go to a Mazda dealer if something goes wrong. i simply can't trust Ford's service.
There are probably as many complaints on Mazda service (or any other marque's) as Ford's.
Anyway... I really was hoping the MazdaSpeed6 was going to be more like a SVT Contour. Instead, they went with a AWD sedan with a turbo-4 and boring styling. The idiots even stripped out the folding rear seat!
around these parts, i wouldn't even take a lawn mower to a Ford dealer for service. the biggest bunch of monkeys. i have been impressed with my Mazda dealer, Ira Mazda, and have heard only good things. oddly, there is a mazda dealer closer to me, 128 Mazda, and they suck. i've hardly heard a good word about their service or techs.
i guess i just got lucky, but it's certainly colored my dislike for Ford in general.
For Sale:
- Sony PSP with a Baseball 2k6 and the movie Crash. $100
- 1973 Karmann Ghia Convertible w/ Auto-Stick. Needs Restoration. $1200 OBO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by sigma:
There's a whole lot more proven reliability with turbo-4s than there are V6s.
I agree with all of your other points except for this one. Some of the most reliable highest HP FI'd vehicles to date have been turbo'd V6's. The V configuration lends itself much better to overall engine stability and is a much more balanced design to boot. The Supra's FI'd V6 is legendary for the amount of power it produces reliably as but one example. They aren't as widely used because they are much more expensive to produce therefore we only see turbo'd V6's in relatively expensive vehicles, but power-wise they are hard to beat. Not saying that I4's don't lend themselves well to FI, they do, and they are less expensive to produce, but IMHO not more reliable per se. There are daily driven 800+rwhp Supras (even 1000+rwhp) and daily driven built 600+rwhp 300/350Z's out there in spades compared to daily driven I4's that you'll find at those power levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
- The AWD system sends 100% of the power to the front wheels until it detects slip, and then can transfer a certain percentage to the rear, and is 100% compuer controlled. It's more like "FWD plus"
People don't seem to care that the Mitsubishi EVO does the exact same thing. No one calls Mitsu's system "FWD Plus" as the EVO stomps the crap out of evirtually everything on the road.
Incorrect. The EVO uses a full-time AWD system with an active center differential, front helical torque-sensing limited slip differential and rear 1.5 limited-slip differential. You can't even compare the two systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
The V configuration lends itself much better to overall engine stability and is a much more balanced design to boot. The Supra's FI'd V6 is legendary for the amount of power it produces reliably as but one example.
Supras are not V6s, they are 3.0L in-line 6-cylinders.
And, of course you won't find 4-Cylinders at the same outputs as 6-cylinders in the same large numbers. You've got less cylinders to work with and the owners of the larger motors are more likely to being into tuning their cars to those levels than 4-cylinder owners.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
The V configuration lends itself much better to overall engine stability and is a much more balanced design to boot. The Supra's FI'd V6 is legendary for the amount of power it produces reliably as but one example.
Supras are not V6s, they are 3.0L in-line 6-cylinders.
And, of course you won't find 4-Cylinders at the same outputs as 6-cylinders in the same large numbers. You've got less cylinders to work with and the owners of the larger motors are more likely to being into tuning their cars to those levels than 4-cylinder owners.
Excellent point, slipped up on that one. 
|
|
|
|
|
