2004 to 2020 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Down 280 HP & loving it
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Im wondering if Mazda accidentally shipped my car with the 2.0l by mistake. There's no point revving past 5k and it's just dead until you hit 3k, so there is a very small window for any action. First gear is just useless and there isn't enough torque to get out of the hole in second. The great news is that the gearing places the tach in this small sweet spot in the 4-6 at highway speeds, so there is a sense of passing power.

I bought this as an economical solution to my needs, so I'm not really complaining, but I was expecting much more out of this 2.5l. The scions with this displacement have balls, but very harsh characteristics. The 2.4l in the TSX is much more powerful, as well.

Am I alone here? Don't mean to sound so negative, but I'm pretty disappointed. Maybe somethin is wrong with my car. I just can't imagine how much weaker the 2.0 is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Someone stole your engine at the plant. Anyways yes there is a huge dead spot. IIRC there is only about 1500RPM worth of some barely decent power and just dead. I've gone to redline several time but there is no power in any range after 4k.

Youre not alone in this. There is no power in this car at all. See it this way, they reduce the weight of the car to make it faster but now if you put 3 more people in the weight saving did not help. The lack of power is just lame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
You guys must have come from very fast cars. I came from a Veloster Turbo and my 2.5L is so much quicker and the powerband feels so much wider. I have timed 0-60 in 6.2s which is very quick for a car that gets me 36.2mpg after 95 fillups. My VT couldn't break 7s and got me 28.9mpg. You guys must have the 2.0's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
I have had my car almost a year and I came from a stage 2 wrx. This car feels like it can't get out of it's own way sometimes. Such is life but I see a tune in my future.
 

·
Down 280 HP & loving it
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Yeah, my last car hit 60 in the mid to low 4 second range and pulled from 60 like a freight train haha. I try to keep things in perspective. As long as I know it's just the way it is I can deal with it. I do love the gas mileage and it's got some nice passing power at highway speeds haha. All in all its a really enjoyable car to drive and I do not miss the deafening cabin noise from the other car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
You guys must have come from very fast cars. I came from a Veloster Turbo and my 2.5L is so much quicker and the powerband feels so much wider. I have timed 0-60 in 6.2s which is very quick for a car that gets me 36.2mpg after 95 fillups. My VT couldn't break 7s and got me 28.9mpg. You guys must have the 2.0's
I'm with you man. I feel you on that Hyundai power. I came from a 2.0T Genesis Coupe. No power and no mileage. I was lucky if I got more than 24MPGs. I dunno about the VT, but in the Gen Coupe with a manual, first gear was kind of a joke. Geared too low to really do much good, but the engine didn't have the power to smoothly start in 2nd gear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
haven't really experience what you felt with this car. i find that in mine, the torque gets on early and it's really pulls in second from 2-5k rev. for a car in this range, it's pretty decent especially with the high comp delivering the torque early. haven't experience any dead spots as well. that said in perspective, my previous was a s65v8, and it was more about smooth delivery across the power band than 0-60 considering i was only doing 5s~ 0-100 timings
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
I'm surprised you say this car is slower than a scion. the acceleration numbers by comparison are quite decent, especially for a manual 2.5. Maybe, the 3 is just more refined so it doesn't give you that excitement with all the noises and vibrations. It definitely goes ok for me. I even tow my boat with it and feel the power is fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
It's funny everyone says the car gets good gas mileage. My average is 25 mpg...........I do a lot of stop and go traffic everyday but man I would love to break the 30s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddyx24x

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
It's not crazy fast but it seems adequate to me. It's faster than my 86 El Camino with the 305 and it's faster or maybe just more responsive than my ex's 2013 manual Civic with the 1.8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
It's funny everyone says the car gets good gas mileage. My average is 25 mpg...........I do a lot of stop and go traffic everyday but man I would love to break the 30s.
I get around 28-31 in town but it's super rare for me to get 40 or higher on the highway. I usually average 34-36 on the highway. The EPA ratings are too high IMHO.
 

·
EtOH
Joined
·
30 Posts
I doubt it. The 2.0L is very slow. The I models are a bit lighter curb weight. But the S models are quicker overall. Granted, it does depend on how you drive. The 2.0L is all about the handling and MPG for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
If you get a good jump in the 2.0L 6MT, it's quick for it's 155hp. Usually, I'd want the car to be faster, but I'm not going to buy intake, full exhaust and tune just for more power. I don't think it's worth it for this car. I'd just get a BMW 328i M-sport. Now with over 250hp and can get a Dinan tune for +280hp and it's warranted...and still get respectable MPG (~35).
 

·
Down 280 HP & loving it
Joined
·
105 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I must've hit on a decent gas station; I always use tier 1 companies. Noticeable improvement in power across the range. I find if I just shift naturally, I shift around 4.5K @ ~50% throttle for spirited driving and it's not too shabby. The main thing for me is the learning curve - practicing up/down shifting to keep the motor in it's happy place. All in all, this car is fun to drive.

Having RB springs and Koni FSD dampers installed as I type. Should make the car even more fun once the exaggerated body movements are limited. I'd rather have a car with a chassis that out handles the motor than a car that overpowers the suspension.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
I have the 2.0 automatic and don't consider it slow. Car & Driver timed it at 7.6 seconds from 0-60. Not bad for a car that is averaging 41.7 mpg on my Fuelly account after 8000 miles of mostly highway driving. So, I'm basically meeting the EPA estimates at this point of ownership.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
The Kia forte's 2.0L makes 173 hp and 154ftlb torque with 11.5:1 compression ratio. Doesn't seem like they are using any special technology. Also, it doesn't seem to be overrated because in road tests they are almost as fast as the 3rd gen Mazda 3 2.5L. Real world fuel economy is close to the skyactiv 2.0.
Car and Driver did the 1/4 mile in [email protected] with an automatic. Again, their 6 speed auto is not as fast-shifting, light, or efficient as the one in our cars. So it seems like our car has the edge in terms of compression, header, transmission, and other technologies, but the kia beats ours in performance somehow.
I would never buy the Forte because they handle like crap and don't have IRS, but their engine has something going for it.
What's their secret and can we apply this to our cars?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I must've hit on a decent gas station; I always use tier 1 companies. Noticeable improvement in power across the range. I find if I just shift naturally, I shift around 4.5K @ ~50% throttle for spirited driving and it's not too shabby. The main thing for me is the learning curve - practicing up/down shifting to keep the motor in it's happy place. All in all, this car is fun to drive.

Having RB springs and Koni FSD dampers installed as I type. Should make the car even more fun once the exaggerated body movements are limited. I'd rather have a car with a chassis that out handles the motor than a car that overpowers the suspension.
I don't know if this is fallacy but I have filled three tanks with 93 octane after filling the last 10 months with 87 and have noticed smoother power delivery. Like I said, this could just be in my head but I have noticed. I figure after a couple tanks I will go back to 87 and see if this remains to be seen.

Also, there is a huge torque deadzone from 2100-2500ish (give or take). Best keep your revs above or below that if you want the power you're looking for. I hear there are tunes which fix this now but this car likes to be revved so when I want the power, a downshift usually does the trick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,789 Posts
"Nice looking car".... "really dynamic chassis"... interesting for what's NOT said (that is, no comment on the power, or lack thereof)

Mazda3 track testing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
As mentioned by the OP, our Acura TSX wagon's 2.4L engine has a lot more power than my 2.5L Mazda 3. Honda really knows how to get power out of a 4 cylinder!

That said, my Mazda 3 with the OV Tune pulls much better than stock, especially with the large torque gain below 4K RPMs. Gets rid of the dead spot in the lower revs. The power comes on stronger, in a very linear fashion. It also revs up much easier. It still doesn't hit hard like our Acura when you stomp on it, but it is greatly improved & I'm happy with it. Now there's power on tap when cruising on the freeway & you hit it.

I'm averaging around 33 MPG, with mixed freeway & city driving.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top