MPS 3 (AKA Mazdaspeed3) gets 256hp, RX-7 info

[Jason C]

HIROSHIMA, Japan — Mazda is readying a 'hot hatch' version of the Mazda3 — and we're talking jalapeño! The 3 MPS (Mazda Performance Series) uses the same 2.3-liter engine as the bigger 6 MPS, and this could make the car the hottest hatch on the market.

The 6 MPS puts out 256 horsepower — way more than the VW Golf GTI (197 hp) or the forthcoming Opel/Vauxhall Astra VXR (237 hp). This should give the 3 MPS a 0-to-60 mph time of below 7 seconds — blistering performance.

The 3 MPS will debut at the Frankfurt Motor Show in September and will go on sale shortly after. Its aggressive styling affirms Mazda is quickly shaking off its fuddy-duddy image, helped by the RX-8 and MX-5 sports cars.

These are likely to be joined in future by a new version of the classic rotary-engined RX-7 two-door coupe. This would sit between the MX-5 and the RX-8 and be powered by the RX-8's powerful rotary engine. Mazda insiders maintain the car will be built, but it is still at least three years away.

What this means to you: Continuing the trend in North America, Mazda is attempting to boost its brand by shedding its dull skin and pumping more exciting models.

[TD]

This should give the 3 MPS a 0-to-60 mph time of below 7 seconds — blistering performance.


0-60 in under 7 sec is "blistering"? There's got to be a typo here.

A 256 hp Mazda 3 better get to 60 in MUCH less than 7.

the RX-8's powerful rotary engine

:loco:

[blee]

:shock:

[TD]

:shock:

If that's your response to the idea of a 256hp Mazda 3, I agree.

[JST]

:shock:

If that's your response to the idea of a 256hp Mazda 3, I agree.

Note that in the US market, the MazdaSpeed 6 makes 274 hp, not 256. If the 3 uses the same engine, it really will have blistering performance.

OTOH, if it's FWD only... :shock:

[TD]

:shock:

If that's your response to the idea of a 256hp Mazda 3, I agree.

Note that in the US market, the MazdaSpeed 6 makes 274 hp, not 256. If the 3 uses the same engine, it really will have blistering performance.

OTOH, if it's FWD only... :shock:

With that much power, they almost have to modify the Mazdaspeed 6's AWD for use on the 3.

You just can't put that much hp into a FWD car and expect it to go straight.

[JST]

:shock:

If that's your response to the idea of a 256hp Mazda 3, I agree.

Note that in the US market, the MazdaSpeed 6 makes 274 hp, not 256. If the 3 uses the same engine, it really will have blistering performance.

OTOH, if it's FWD only... :shock:

With that much power, they almost have to modify the Mazdaspeed 6's AWD for use on the 3.

You just can't put that much hp into a FWD car and expect it to go straight.

Given the platform share between the Volvo S40, the new Focus (which will have an AWD version) and the Mazda 3, AWD would be easy.

[Jason C]

Btw Mazda, you know that turbo RX-8 that your Australian arm built?

Please find a way to make that CA-emissions legal. (Oh, and actually bringing it over for a reasonable price, you know - all that other stuff too).

[lemming]

it will be still suboptimal in FWD or FWD-biased AWD form.

nice engine, though.

driven too many powerful saabs (plus an s70 T5 ownership experience) that will never, ever, ever have me thinking that high power turbo FWDers are any fun, no matter what anyone says. the physics of it is still stupid.

[blee]

Shrug. Once owned a FWD car that put out around 270hp, no diff. Not a big deal. Of course, that car also weighed 3800 lbs.

A powerful engine like that in a Mazda 3 would be a lot of fun. AWD would be nice, but it's not a necessity.

[lemming]

Shrug. Once owned a FWD car that put out around 270hp, no diff. Not a big deal. Of course, that car also weighed 3800 lbs.

A powerful engine like that in a Mazda 3 would be a lot of fun. AWD would be nice, but it's not a necessity.

it just makes no sense to call a FWD car a performance vehicle due to the physics of that much power through the front wheels.

during acceleration, the weight shifts backward, OFF of the front wheels and onto the rear wheels. it's a ridiculous concept. one might as well buy a neon SRT-4 and enjoy the concept now instead of having to wait.

[clyde]

the RX-8's powerful rotary engine

:loco:

Every bit as powerful as the ///M thing under your hood, but it weighs a lot less and has much smaller exterior dimensions.

>>>>T D makes "yours didn't feel very powerful when I drove it last year" comment <<<<

You also didn't drive it properly. You are more than welcome to give it a proper flogging any time.

:flipoff:

[rumatt]

it just makes no sense to call a FWD car a performance vehicle due to the physics of that much power through the front wheels.

I'm starting to feel the same way about any car with an open diff. It might as well FWD if you can't accelerate around a corner without spinning a wheel. :rolleyes:

I think the LSD is one of the reasons the E30 was so much more fun to autox. Accelerating out of a corner? Wow, I've never done that before. :shock:

[dan]

guess mine's not a performance car then :cry:

[blee]

Shrug. Once owned a FWD car that put out around 270hp, no diff. Not a big deal. Of course, that car also weighed 3800 lbs.

A powerful engine like that in a Mazda 3 would be a lot of fun. AWD would be nice, but it's not a necessity.

it just makes no sense to call a FWD car a performance vehicle due to the physics of that much power through the front wheels.

during acceleration, the weight shifts backward, OFF of the front wheels and onto the rear wheels. it's a ridiculous concept. one might as well buy a neon SRT-4 and enjoy the concept now instead of having to wait.

It's not ideal for performance, no. But it still works. Do you know of any new sub-$20k rwd performance cars on the market?

[lemming]

guess mine's not a performance car then :cry:

actually your car is the epitome of the ideal drivetrain configuration, except it doesn't have some semblance of a mechanical or electronic LSD.

the other thing, of course, that will suck on the mazdaspeed 3 is a 60/40 weight distribution (fr/rear).

[rumatt]

guess mine's not a performance car then :cry:

No worries. It's good enough for getting groceries. :)

[ff]

You just can't put that much hp into a FWD car and expect it to go straight.

Shoot, just hire BMW to design a traction and stability control system for the 3 that effectively reduces power at the wheels to around 150 HP. Problem sovled.

[JST]

You just can't put that much hp into a FWD car and expect it to go straight.

Shoot, just hire BMW to design a traction and stability control system for the 3 that effectively reduces power at the wheels to around 150 HP. Problem sovled.

I'm as pissed that BMW doesn't offer a mechanical LSD on anything but M cars as the next guy, but compared to some of the alternatives BMW's DSC system is pretty good. At least you can turn it off, and I've always found its intervention to be relatively inconspicuous compared to other systems I've sampled.

YMMV.

[clyde]

I'm as pissed that BMW doesn't offer a mechanical LSD on anything but M cars as the next guy, but compared to some of the alternatives BMW's DSC system is pretty good. At least you can turn it off, and I've always found its intervention to be relatively inconspicuous compared to other systems I've sampled.

YMMV.

That has not been my experience at all, but my experiences have been limited to just two other car types. The DSC (or similar systems) in the RX-8 and C5 Corvettes (particularly the latter ones) feel much less invasive than what BMW uses on the regular E46s.

[TD]

And I thought the threshold for DSC intervention on my former E46 330i was absurdly low. It would kick in pulling out of a driveway into traffic on dry pavement at only ~75% of full throttle. It was awful.

[JST]

And I thought the threshold for DSC intervention on my former E46 330i was absurdly low. It would kick in pulling out of a driveway into traffic on dry pavement at only ~75% of full throttle. It was awful.

I've yet to have the DSC on the 330 go off--maybe they've changed the thresholds? Maybe the tires are still grippy? Dunno.

The DSC on the M3 would go off regularly (including one memorable incident posted about here where it cut power just when I needed it most), but I drove that car like I was mad at it--in "normal" driving, the DSC was mostly unobtrusive.

I had forgotten about the DSC in the RX-8; that is better (especially since I didn't even realize that I left it on during autocross runs). Of course, it only has 20 ft-lb of torque to manage, so maybe it can be more deft.

EDIT:

The others I'm thinking of are DCX (the 300, even with the V6, set its TC off a lot when I was driving it, and you couldn't switch it off), Ford (Mustang GT, Contour SE), VW, and Volvo.

[TD]

And I thought the threshold for DSC intervention on my former E46 330i was absurdly low. It would kick in pulling out of a driveway into traffic on dry pavement at only ~75% of full throttle. It was awful.

I've yet to have the DSC on the 330 go off--maybe they've changed the thresholds? Maybe the tires are still grippy? Dunno.

The DSC on the M3 would go off regularly (including one memorable incident posted about here where it cut power just when I needed it most), but I drove that car like I was mad at it--in "normal" driving, the DSC was mostly unobtrusive.

I had forgotten about the DSC in the RX-8; that is better (especially since I didn't even realize that I left it on during autocross runs). Of course, it only has 20 ft-lb of torque to manage, so maybe it can be more deft.

EDIT:

The others I'm thinking of are DCX (the 300, even with the V6, set its TC off a lot when I was driving it, and you couldn't switch it off), Ford (Mustang GT, Contour SE), VW, and Volvo.

I got rid of my 330i when it still had under 12K on the odo. The tires on it were Pilot Sports (not Contis). They were still sticky.

[JST]

And I thought the threshold for DSC intervention on my former E46 330i was absurdly low. It would kick in pulling out of a driveway into traffic on dry pavement at only ~75% of full throttle. It was awful.

I've yet to have the DSC on the 330 go off--maybe they've changed the thresholds? Maybe the tires are still grippy? Dunno.

The DSC on the M3 would go off regularly (including one memorable incident posted about here where it cut power just when I needed it most), but I drove that car like I was mad at it--in "normal" driving, the DSC was mostly unobtrusive.

I had forgotten about the DSC in the RX-8; that is better (especially since I didn't even realize that I left it on during autocross runs). Of course, it only has 20 ft-lb of torque to manage, so maybe it can be more deft.

EDIT:

The others I'm thinking of are DCX (the 300, even with the V6, set its TC off a lot when I was driving it, and you couldn't switch it off), Ford (Mustang GT, Contour SE), VW, and Volvo.

I got rid of my 330i when it still had under 12K on the odo. The tires on it were Pilot Sports (not Contis). They were still sticky.

What are the rears on the ZSP 330? 245? The extra width on the back might explain part of it (I think the ZHP has 255s), and the extra inertia from the bigger wheels might be another part of it (though the lower FD ratio should compensate). I might also not drive as hard as you do. :eeps:

[TD]

It may actually result from the disparity in overall wheel/tire diameter on the front versus rear on ZSP 330s. The DSC system might actually be confused by this disparity (which I assume was not programmed into the system).

IIRC, the tires on the 330i ZSP are 225/45/17s in front and 245/40/17s in back. This results in a tire on the rear that is actually not as tall as the tire on the front, by a fraction of an inch.

[Rob]

If BMW is your only benchmark for electro nannies, you are missing out. One thing that GM has done really well with (imo) on the V is the traction control. It isn't invasive at all, has four settings (including completely off), and is more than happy to let you hang the tail out in competition driving mode, but still keep the wife happy b/c if you get the tail far enough out, it will put up a big TRACTION CONTROL ACTIVE sign on the nav with a bright white background. It's far less intrusive than any BMW system I have used.

[lemming]

If BMW is your only benchmark for electro nannies, you are missing out. One thing that GM has done really well with (imo) on the V is the traction control. It isn't invasive at all, has four settings (including completely off), and is more than happy to let you hang the tail out in competition driving mode, but still keep the wife happy b/c if you get the tail far enough out, it will put up a big TRACTION CONTROL ACTIVE sign on the nav with a bright white background. It's far less intrusive than any BMW system I have used.

can you imagine if the turbo protege/mazdaspeed 3 used DSC as an electronic diff. to control front wheel traction? it'd burn up the front brake pads in no time.

have you guys ever been to the drag strip to see FWD "dragsters"? the front tires are wider than the rears. i had to look twice. it was an n/a motor CRX that broke the 13 second barrier.

they could use that approach for the m'speed 3. :lol:

[bren]

have you guys ever been to the drag strip to see FWD "dragsters"? the front tires are wider than the rears. i had to look twice. it was an n/a motor CRX that broke the 13 second barrier.

they could use that approach for the m'speed 3. :lol:
Pontiac is already doing that with the new Grand Prix GXP. 255 fronts, 225 rears.

[lemming]

have you guys ever been to the drag strip to see FWD "dragsters"? the front tires are wider than the rears. i had to look twice. it was an n/a motor CRX that broke the 13 second barrier.

they could use that approach for the m'speed 3. :lol:
Pontiac is already doing that with the new Grand Prix GXP. 255 fronts, 225 rears.

:)