2003 Mazda V-6 and 2003 Mondeo V-6

Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives

I have noticed that the 2003 Mazda6 V-6 is 2967cc and so is the 2003 ST220 V-6 but that is where the similarities end. The ST220 V-6 has 226 hp at 6000 rpm and 203 ft*lb of torque at 4750 rpm. The Mazda6 V-6 has 220 hp at 6300 rpm and 192 ft*lb of torque at 5000 rpm. The ST220 V-6 makes more hp and torque at lower rpms with the same engine displacement. Are these the same engines with different tuning?

Originally posted by Driver:
I have noticed that the 2003 Mazda6 V-6 is 2967cc and so is the 2003 ST220 V-6 but that is where the similarities end. The ST220 V-6 has 226 hp at 6000 rpm and 203 ft*lb of torque at 4750 rpm. The Mazda6 V-6 has 220 hp at 6300 rpm and 192 ft*lb of torque at 5000 rpm. The ST220 V-6 makes more hp and torque at lower rpms with the same engine displacement. Are these the same engines with different tuning?

big big big....winner....they are both 3.0 liter duratec motors that are found in the Taurus. Diffrence is the Taurus has no variable valve timing, the mazda does, but the ST220 im not sure what it has.

What sort of gas does it run on? That is if you can compare the European equivalent.

Originally posted by MotorCity:
What sort of gas does it run on? That is if you can compare the European equivalent.

He asked a simple question so i gave him a simple answer.....I know there the same block, but i don;t know the excat details of the engines, like ECU, fuel managements and stuff like that....Sorry, I wish i knew more.

All i know is that there related and they same block...and thats what i thought he ment in his question....not if they were EXACLY alike.

Roz

The 6's programming is messed up. I saw one on the dyno this weekend and it gets really rich (Sometimes below 10 A/F Ratio) above 5000 RPMs. This is robbing a lot of power from what I could see.

I have been lead to believe that the ST200 uses the Contour SVT cams, but I don't really know for sure.

Originally posted by MotorCity:
What sort of gas does it run on? That is if you can compare the European equivalent.

In Europe or at least the UK & Ireland, they use the RON method of calculating octane, here in the US it's the (R/M)*2 method IIRC. R and M are RON and MON respectively. No, I don't know what it all means ....

[/useless info]

Originally posted by Big Jim:
I have been lead to believe that the ST200 uses the Contour SVT cams, but I don't really know for sure.

You mean the ST220? I'm sure the ST200 does.

I want an ST220!

"they are both 3.0 liter duratec motors that are found in the Taurus."

The newer Duratecs are far more advanced and updated than the Taurus 3.0

does the mazda 6 have the dual extrude honed UIM?

Originally posted by beyondloadedSE:
does the mazda 6 have the dual extrude honed UIM?

Originally posted by Big Jim:
I have been lead to believe that the ST200 uses the Contour SVT cams, but I don't really know for sure.

Yes the ST200 has the exact same engine as an 2.5L SVT.

However the ST220 has a 3L Duratec engine.
No VVT, no head changes (like the Mazda or Jag versions), just good old fashioned 3L Duratec power.

Originally posted by 2000GreenTour:
The newer Duratecs are far more advanced and updated than the Taurus 3.0

Taurus can be ordered with either the old "Vulcan" V-6 or the better Duratec V-6, both 3.0L.

All of the European modern gasoline fueled engines are designed for 95 octane gas. However they can use any higer octane gas (as Shell Optimax in UK) without problems. If you want to go lower (91 octane) there is a plugg in the engine compartment that one must, well unplugg and use the lower octane gas only for a short while.

Originally posted by MarkO:

Originally posted by MotorCity:
What sort of gas does it run on? That is if you can compare the European equivalent.

In Europe or at least the UK & Ireland, they use the RON method of calculating octane, here in the US it's the (R/M)*2 method IIRC. R and M are RON and MON respectively. No, I don't know what it all means ....

[/useless info]

R stands for research, and is the benchmark for an engine at idle

M is for either motor or machine, and has the engine go through an RPM range

The US standard is actually (R+M)/2, or an average of the two, and the number isn't actually the amount of octane (there's actually little or no pure octane in this mix of hydrocarbons), rather it's the percentage of how much this particular fraction of gasoline distillation behaves like octane.

Originally posted by airman1:
All of the European modern gasoline fueled engines are designed for 95 octane gas. However they can use any higer octane gas (as Shell Optimax in UK) without problems. If you want to go lower (91 octane) there is a plugg in the engine compartment that one must, well unplugg and use the lower octane gas only for a short while.

But they ONLY use the higher RON rating. Here is the US we use an average rating of both MON & RON.

Their 95 is like our 90-91 octane fuel.
Their "rare premium" 100 would be like our ~94 octane.

Also not ALL their cars are programmed for 95 RON. They have lower grade available and the majority of the cars are programmed for it (Just like the US - Economy engines prevail)

Also the "octane plug" is a thing of the past (or at least for any company smart enough to just use PCM code anyway)
It's all controlled by code in the PCM now.

The Octane plug went away when OBD II was introduced. In the US the 95 Contiques have octane plugs and the 96 and newer do not.

Originally posted by Kasey Chang:

Originally posted by 2000GreenTour:
The newer Duratecs are far more advanced and updated than the Taurus 3.0

Taurus can be ordered with either the old "Vulcan" V-6 or the better Duratec V-6, both 3.0L.

The Duratec being a 'better' motor remains to be seen...the Vulcan has been around MANY more years than the Duratec.

Better might mean 200 HP instead of 170.

Until 2003, all our leased cars (Taurus/Sable) had the Duratec. Now we are getting the Vulcan. Vulcan is a lot slower than the D'Tec (at least in a Taurus). We haven't had a lot of issues with the 3.0 duratec either. 1200 cars are a good test sample. I can tell you about all the failures we had when we had the Chrysler products though. We keep our leased cars about 80,000 miles and the D'Tec is treating us well. (The vulcan isn't doing bad either, just less powerful). Now if Ford would make a reliable automatic, that would be something.

FWIW, the Vulcan is still only up to 155 hp; a 5 hp gain since its inception back in 1986 in the first Tauri. I believe 186 ft-lbs of torque though, at a nice low 3900 RPM. Gotta love those engines that produce more torque than HP.

It's a push rod, old technology engine! The vulcan will be gone soon because it doesn't have any potential.

-Andy

Originally posted by mavrock:
FWIW, the Vulcan is still only up to 155 hp; a 5 hp gain since its inception back in 1986 in the first Tauri. I believe 186 ft-lbs of torque though, at a nice low 3900 RPM. Gotta love those engines that produce more torque than HP.

The original Tauri had 140 hp.

And as far as pushrod engines go, only GM knows how to make a modern one! And some fabulous pushrods over there - the 3800 V6, and all the Vortec V-8's plus the 5.7L Vette.

And GM knows how to make automatic transmissions too! Aren't some of the latest M-B's using GM hydramatic transmissions?

Kerry

Originally posted by mavrock:
FWIW, the Vulcan is still only up to 155 hp; a 5 hp gain since its inception back in 1986 in the first Tauri. I believe 186 ft-lbs of torque though, at a nice low 3900 RPM. Gotta love those engines that produce more torque than HP.

I thought they upped it, but they didn't (I must of confused it with another article I was reading somewhere). I've had 2 Taurus' and a Sable. The HP was 140 @ 4800 and it took hours to reach 4800 RPM

Originally posted by edmunds.com:

Performance
Base Number of Cylinders: 6 Base Engine Size: 3 liters
Base Engine Type: V6 Horsepower: 140 hp
Max Horsepower: 4800 rpm Torque: 165 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 3250 rpm Drive Type: FWD

So they did squeeze out another 15 HP. I just rented a '03 Taurus with the vulcan and it was pitiful though. No bottom or top, just a little gasp in the middle. It felt worse than my '94 Sable. I was glad to get in my Contour.

Vulcan is reliable, but then so is a John Deere tractor. Who wants to drive that?

And the "many more years" is only 9, whoopie. First Duratecs were in 1994, vs. 1985 for the Vulcan.

Originally posted by 2000GreenTour:
Vulcan is reliable, but then so is a John Deere tractor. Who wants to drive that?

And the "many more years" is only 9, whoopie. First Duratecs were in 1994, vs. 1985 for the Vulcan.

I think that ANY engine that has lasted as long as 18+ years has proved its worth...how many are in service that long?
I agree on power though, my first car was an 86 Taurus and they ARE dogs!