Jump to content
SAU Community

Mazda 3 Mps


Noel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was lucky enough to win a day at Oran park & got to test Drive the new Mazda Turbo range around the track including the MPS 3, MPS 6, RX8, & new MX5...then get taken by Dick Johnson in MPS 3 for a hot lap

First drove RX8...interior is awesome & handles beautifully but was disaappointed with the performance...i know its a rotary & you need to rev them but it feels like the diff gears are for the highway

Next i drove the MPS 6...Loved the throttle response & felt quicker than the RX8 & def handles well but not sure if i like the AWD feeling (used to Rear) & also found the gearstick positioning awkward as i felt like i had to reach forward & down to grab lever

Next was the MPS 3...first i will say i thought this much power in a front wheel drive was crazy & that it would just wheelspin & understeer...I WAS WRONG!!! This thing is nuts...as soon as you touch the pedal its throwing you back in your seat...although you can get it wheelspin it barely understeers & shat all over the RX8, MPS 6 AWD in handling & performance...This thing hits peak 380nm torque at 3000rpm & pulls all the way til redline then launches hard into the next gear. This car although nowhere near the quickest is prob one of the most fun cars i have ever driven...you could drive it out the showroom straight to the track no problems whatsoever!!!

I then got taken by Dick in MPS 3 for a hot lap...let me tell you when you are out there you think you are tha sh it & a good driver til you hop in with someone like Dick...its nuts...i loved every second of it as i was getting thrown left to right as he hammered this mazda around the track & this car def is a little rocket & i got to see its full potential this time around

next i drove the new MX5 which is quite diff to the 92 1.6L & 98 1.8L which i have driven...actually feels like it as some go but more a sports cruiser than anything

Overall was an awesome day & id say MPS 6 is good for a sports family, MX5 as i have said above, RX8 good for posing & the occasional straight line squirt & MPS 3 is just awesome all round although would not like to drive it in the wet with stability control off

Anyway look forward to others comments but this car is def the best FWD car i have ever driven & a def if your after a hot hatch in my opnion

Edited by Noel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You comments are pretty much what I have experienced, the difficulty with the MPS3 is the lack of front wheel drive traction under power. To overcome it, Mazda have tuned the traction control to limit the power, so that it APPEARS not to power understeer. The problem is, this makes it slower than the quoted power figure would indicate whenever the traction control intervenes.

So when I jumped on the throttle to drive it out of a corner (and get some speed coming onto the straight) the ECU would cut the power by half and it would be slow until it gained some traction. This would then affect the speed all the way down the straight.

Personally, if I buy a car with 190 kw I want it to be able to use that 190 kw whenever I want. Not when the ECU thinks it’s OK for me to have 190 kw. The truth is 190 kw is too much for a front wheel drive, road car.

:O cheers :ban:

PS, it’s much, much worse in the rain, when repmobiles easily drag you off (very embarrassing).

Edited by Sydneykid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea Sydneykid they explained all that about how it cuts throttle etc but it does def work especially around the track...good thing tho is that you can take it off so then you would have 190kw all the time & could wheelspin all you wanted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 6 MPS is still quicker to 100 and over the 1/4.

Makes sense as it AWD but we did not get to do a take off really as we would start in pits so all i can say is that driving in general the 3 felt quicker & more responsive than the 6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not good enough without photos!

where are the dang photos of the day!!

:rolleyes:

sounds like it was a fun day out - and the 3 seems like a hoot!

yea was awesome mate...no photos as i was busy driving or being passenger the whole session

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they are awesome. My flatmate took delivery a couple of weeks ago and it's a lovely beast. Still yet to line it up against the R34 though... should be an interesting contest

i have a stock r33 manual & i reckon it would leave me for dead off the line although i would still rather my car ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have driven all of them as i work for mazda..

and the Mazda 3 Mps is quick.. but the Mazda 6 MPS still OWNED IT as far as i'm concerned..

They should have made the M3 MPS an all wheel drive and the M6 MPS a CONSTANT all wheel drive.

The RX-8 is still by far the funnest to drive! :laugh:

Edited by RB_turbo_bitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how?!?!

Enquired about MPS 6 way before it came out then when 3 came out they sent me some brochures etc & there was this code & a link to site which was a car game where you had to race around track & they log your time & did not think anything of it then yea then a few weeks ago i recieved an email telling me i had won this & to choose a session...there were loads of people (were 3 sessions x 2 days) so guessing they chose top 50 or so times...not sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have got a sp23 as a second car - great cars and they handle so well

I was looking into getting a mps3 but the price tag put me off as its going into wrx territory

A mate took me for a spin in his mps3 and i was very impressed at the overall package - the only gripe i have is i hate fwd turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i cant wait to see one of those maxda 3 turbo's worked too 250-300kw

It wouldn't be driveable at that power level.. Most FWD struggle to be too driveable once you exceed the power levels for the chasis and get power to the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i had a 2000 magna 5spd and it had a bit over 170hp at the front wheels (so a bit over 170kw at the fly- rough gestamite) and it was borderline for fwd traction. in the wet even with good tyres if you hit a bump at full noise in second or 3rd it would just start spinning. i could take off from a stop sign in 2nd and still spin the wheels.

barely understeered though. if you punched it out of a corner it would mostly just spin the inside wheel but off the line it would do both.

of the line in 1st you had to be delicate if you were trying to launch hard.

did the mps 3 torque steer much? my missus has a sss pulsar (natro sr20 with 112hp atw) and it torque steers in 1st and 2nd at full noise like nothing else on rough roads. on smooth roads its not so bad, but can be a bit unpredictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did the mps 3 torque steer much? my missus has a sss pulsar (natro sr20 with 112hp atw) and it torque steers in 1st and 2nd at full noise like nothing else on rough roads. on smooth roads its not so bad, but can be a bit unpredictable.

well suprisingly no...not even when Dick was driving it....they have put alot of effort & technology behind this to make it as good as possible with a FWD setup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • There are a few variables here, some are relevant but not critical (IMHO) to help answer your question. The two major things: 1) Ignoring anything to do with forced induction - all engines have their own natural torque curve, and it will ALWAYS roll over higher in the rpm.  There is a fixed relationship between power and torque.  When dealing with kw and nm, the relationship between them is roughly: kw = (rpm * nm) / 9549 nm = (kw / rpm) * 9549 The peak torque of an engine (without boost) will typically climb until somewhere nearish the middle of it's operating rev range, give or take a bit - then start dropping again.   The nearer the minimum and maximum rpm of the engine the steeper that drop off tends to be. 2) Boost simply increases the density of the air going into the engine, which inflates the torque at that point.  The ramp up in the torque curve you see on a turbo engine is due to the boost rising, but it's essentially just multiplying the torque you'd see if it was naturally aspirated.  The roll over you see at the end will typically be what would have always happened with the engine, whether it was naturally aspirated or turbocharged.   If the torque never started dropping then power would climb infinitely. The cool thing about this is you absolutely can tune the power delivery to suit the needs of the owner and/or the limitations of the car, and I regularly do this.    With modern turbos we've got to the point where a setup that someone may run well over 20psi of boost with could actually reach target boost well under 4000rpm if the tuner/owner WANTED to - and a lot of people seem to do this when there is actually no realistic benefit, generally it just adds a massive amount of strain to the engine and drivetrain and often actually makes the car harder to drive. As a general rule I tend to tune the boost curves for cars I tune to reach a "useful" torque level through the rev range and will often end up with a curve that ramps hard to a point, then creeps for the rest of the rev range - not to make the boost curve "soft" as such, but more to make sure its neither laggy nor pointlessly violent in it's delivery.   There have been cars I've tuned to be almost like a centrifugal supercharger (or naturally-aspirated-ish) where they actually only hit like 8psi of boost before opening the gate, then ramp up the next 10psi over the rev range... if the car is "loose enough" to drive. On the flip side I've tuned a car that had stock cams and the engine's natural torque curve fell over HARD in the higher rpm and resulted in a slightly awkward power curve to work with, in that case I actually started ramping up boost to boost torque in a way to offset the engines "NA" torque drop off... at peak rpm actually running a good 5psi+ more boost that what the "flat curve" would have defined.  This gave the owner an extra 500rpm or so of useable rev range, and had a fairly solid impact on times he was running at motorsport events due to being able to hold gears a bit longer and also falling into a more useful part of the rev range in the following gears. Here's an example of an RB in a GTSt I've done the "softened" boost curve to not pointlessly ramp straight to the max boost target early in the rpm, but still made sure it builds useful boost.  If you went in the car you'd not guess at all that the boost curve was doing anything "weird", it feels like it spools immediately and accelerates relentlessly (traction dependent) and holds to max rpm.   I don't know if you'd guess what the boost curve was doing by driving the car, or even looking at the dyno plot... but imho it suits the combination.  
    • therefore on the first examples, as we see, changing cams (graph 2) influences the quantity of torque at high revs its OK for me. so a tuner can act on the wastegate via the boost controller to increase the boost at high revs? on the last example, the boost does not decrease ok, but the torque does. this can come from cams etc etc ok. but on the other curves the boost is not constant, it increases, this is what I find strange to my mind. even more so if it comes from the relief valve. sorry I'm very new don't blame me. in my mind I couldn't imagine how the boost could be higher after the spool  
    • right, but fundamentally, for a given mechanical setup, you are either using all the torque (and therefore power) it will give, or you are choosing to run it less efficiently. Many tuners will have a practice of identifying peak available torque and then winding it back a couple of % for safety, but unless you are working around a very specific issue like a weak gearbox, there is nothing to be gained by making 20 or 30% less than the engine can
    • You can manipulate the torque delivery by ramping in boost gently, then throwing it all in after peak torque to keep the torque flat. It's nothing magical.
    • Tuning the wastegate to do it. That is all. Most people want the boost to not fall off like the most recent example. Those also look like dyno runs with an Auto/Torque converter setup, which does fun things to the graph. The boost tapers down like that because the turbo cannot supply the same amount of air at 7000rpm that it can at 3000 in terms of PSI. That, or the tuner has decided that it tapering off like that is what someone chose to do. IF you have a wastegate that can't bleed enough air to slow the turbine, and IF that turbo can flow enough air to feed the engine at high RPM, you get 'boost creep' which is a rise of boost pressure beyond what you are capable of controlling and/or want. None of these show symptoms of that, but if you had a run that was 20psi at 3000rpm, and 27psi at 7000rpm, it could be an example of that. Or simply that the person wanted boost later for their own reasons... The dyno graphs don't always show the full context.
×
×
  • Create New...