Jump to content
SAU Community

Mazda 3 Mps


Noel
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

FAAAAAAAAARRRK!

I wouldn't.

220kw is about the limit for a front wheel drive. Even prior to that you start to see hideous amounts of torque steer (plant your foot, go left!).

Its well known in the UK where they have many "hot" front wheel drives sold from manufacturers.

RWD and adjustable AWD for the win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't driven either of them, but independent testing shows the 3 MPS is in fact quicker...

At least in gear I reckon a 3 MPS would take off. The launch of the 6 MPS gives it the 1/4 time advantage. Roll on would be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karen and I took an M3 (just for you Daveo :D ) MPS for a drive a week or two ago, and I have to admit I was more than a little impressed. I was a lot more impressed than I expected to be actually. That said, FWD dynamics don't really do it for me, and it apparently has a stability control thing in it, so I deliberately botched a corner entry to test it and it happily understeered towards the side of the road lol. In the rest of the corners it seemed to hang on quite well though, maybe they've tried to make the stability control not too intrusive? Powering out of a corner was frustrating but something I could live with given the rest of the package.

I thought the interior was fairly nice, the seats and pedal placement were good, the wheel is adjustable for reach and tilt and the dash is fairly easily readable. My only gripes were that some parts of the interior felt a bit cheap, and the clutch was really grabby, nearly as grabby as my old 5 puck brass button - it went from nothing to fully engaged in probably 10mm of pedal travel. This is fine if you're expecting to do a fair amount of track work or hard driving, but for a vehicle that I personally see as a quickish road car rather than something I'd be wanting to take to the track all the time, it's a bit annoying.

Gordo, peak power to weight doesn't tell the whole story, these things make stupid amounts of torque from 3k up until nearly the redline. In gear they are really quite impressive :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at 1400kg and 190kw, it's about the same as a stock R33, but it's not a supercar..

but look at the 294nm of torque @ 4800rpm in R33 compared to 380nm @ 3000rpm in MPS...not that i would choose one over my R33 but its quite impressive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but look at the 294nm of torque @ 4800rpm in R33 compared to 380nm @ 3000rpm in MPS...not that i would choose one over my R33 but its quite impressive

Which indicates the Mazda 3 has a higher average power over the rev range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which indicates the Mazda 3 has a higher average power over the rev range.

as soon as you tramp it it goes where as in my 33 anything under 3000-3500rpm it takes a second or two to get going

still rather my car tho :(

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...