[rdf_mz3]

Hey Guys,
Has anyone heard of anyone making performance internals for the 3rd Gen Mazda 3 yet? I have been chatting with engine builders and they all say the sky-active is to new and there is not much out there in terms of pistons, rods, etc.

I thought I would see what the MX-5 was running as it seems to be the Mazda "sports-car" and was shocked to find out it only has the 2.0L motor at 155 horsepower - not much of a sports car. Further more, after comparing all the specs to see they are the exact same - their site says for the Mazda 3 use regular unleaded, but for the same motor under MX-5 it says use premium. Seems like Mazda doesn't even know what they are talking about.

I know OV Tuning has camshafts listed, but they always seem to be out of stock. Other than that I am coming up empty.

Anyway, thought I'd pose the question in case anyone has heard anything.

Thannks,

 

[louisbosco]

155hp at stock.. for a SUB 1000kg car.. do you know what are you talking about?

 

[rdf_mz3]

155hp at stock.. for a SUB 1000kg car.. do you know what are you talking about?

MX-5 is 1113KG, Mazda 3 Sedan is 1303KG. Are you telling me 190KG difference determines a sport car vs. sedan? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Looking for value added feedback - not a pissing contest.

 

[louisbosco]

Nah I meant it as bants anyway. I meant it more about the power to weight ratio with regards to what you said about Mazda don't know what they're talking about..

Anyway.. there are a couple of turbo kit that has been developed for the new mx5 which 1 company I've been in contact with has used the Mazda 3 as the development car. I've no clue as to how it'll work yet as they haven't come across the 2.5 engine in their region at all.

 

[Studum]

MX-5 is 1113KG, Mazda 3 Sedan is 1303KG. Are you telling me 190KG difference determines a sport car vs. sedan? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Looking for value added feedback - not a pissing contest.

190KG / ~410 lbs of is a huge chunk of weight savings when put into a lower center of gravity with better weight distribution and RWD. There's almost no comparison between it and the Mazda 3 out of the box. Absolute rocket ship? No... But absolute blast to drive? Absolutely. Claiming it's not a sports car and that "Mazda doesn't know what they're doing" is a bit ignorant.

Best of luck in your search.

 

[rdf_mz3]

190KG / ~410 lbs of is a huge chunk of weight savings when put into a lower center of gravity with better weight distribution and RWD. There's almost no comparison between it and the Mazda 3 out of the box. Absolute rocket ship? No... But absolute blast to drive? Absolutely. Claiming it's not a sports car and that "Mazda doesn't know what they're doing" is a bit ignorant.

Best of luck in your search.

Again, original question was about the motor and facts. Sure Its sport looking - and likely fun to drive no doubt, and yes 410lbs of weight is a good chunk that would help. but at the end of the day it still 155hp NA sports car. It likely is a little faster than the 3, but unless your talking quarter seconds on track its not going to be a giant notice of a difference once you take the "fun" level out of it. .

As for not knowing what Mazda is talking about and being ignorant - I was more regarding the fuel grade listen between the cars with the exact same motor. The fact it is presented as the same motor with the same compression rating means it should not have a different grade of fuel. Perhaps its tuned different or does in fact have different internals which they do not mention. Something I would be interested in knowing, but if neither of those apply than the fuel grade would be irrelevant.

 

[Matt22]

Only cams is the answer I have read. unless you wanted to contact Mazda and try to get some super expensive racing engine parts.

 

[pete_89t2]

Again, original question was about the motor and facts. Sure Its sport looking - and likely fun to drive no doubt, and yes 410lbs of weight is a good chunk that would help. but at the end of the day it still 155hp NA sports car. It likely is a little faster than the 3, but unless your talking quarter seconds on track its not going to be a giant notice of a difference once you take the "fun" level out of it. .

Here's some facts excerpted from Mazda's website to compare these two engines.

2017 Mazda MX-5 Engine Specifications:
Engine type SKYACTIV®1 -G 2.0L DOHC 16-valve 4-cylinder with VVT
Horsepower 155 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque 148 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm
Redline 6800 rpm
Displacement (cc) 1998
Bore x stroke (mm) 83.5 x 91.2
Compression ratio 13 : 1
Fuel system Electronically controlled fuel injection
Recommended fuel Premium unleaded, 91 octane or greater
Minimum octane requirement (R+M/2) Regular unleaded, 87 octane or greater
Valvetrain Chain-driven dual overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder with variable intake valve timing (VVT)
Ignition system Distributor-less ignition
Engine block Aluminum alloy
Cylinder head Aluminum alloy
Emission control type (Fed/Cal) ULEV / Tier2 Bin5


2017 Mazda 3 Engine Specifications (2.0L):
Engine type SKYACTIV®-G1 2.0L DOHC 4-cylinder with VVT
Horsepower 155 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque 150 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Redline 6800 rpm
Displacement (cc) 1998
Bore x stroke (mm) 83.5 x 91.2
Compression ratio 13.0 : 1
Fuel system Advanced Direct Injection
Recommended fuel Regular unleaded
Valvetrain Chain-driven dual overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder with variable intake valve timing (VVT)
Ignition system Direct coil-on-plug electronic ignition with platinum-tipped spark plugs
Engine block Aluminum alloy
Cylinder head Aluminum alloy
Emission control type (Fed/Cal) PZEV


I highlighted the stated differences. Note that the differences in torque rating @ RPM, and different emission control type. Other than the external differences required due to packaging in a FWD vs RWD platform and ancillary parts, the engine internals are identical. The TUNING is the difference where the premium fuel comes into play, but it is not obvious from just the specs above.

Clearly the MX-5 must be running a more aggressive timing to net a broader torque curve that pushes its torque peak closer to its HP peak, making it more suitable to a sports car application. The 3 is tuned to hit its torque peak at relatively low RPMs and then fizzle out above that, which is fine for a typical family car. If you were to compare dyno curves for HP & Torque vs. RPM between a stock MX-5 & Mazda3, you'll see this in the curves.

As for not knowing what Mazda is talking about and being ignorant - I was more regarding the fuel grade listen between the cars with the exact same motor. The fact it is presented as the same motor with the same compression rating means it should not have a different grade of fuel. Perhaps its tuned different or does in fact have different internals which they do not mention. Something I would be interested in knowing, but if neither of those apply than the fuel grade would be irrelevant.

^No. See above, it's in the tuning. A few degrees of timing advance drives the recommendation for premium.

 

[arathol]

I thought I would see what the MX-5 was running as it seems to be the Mazda "sports-car" and was shocked to find out it only has the 2.0L motor at 155 horsepower - not much of a sports car. Further more, after comparing all the specs to see they are the exact same - their site says for the Mazda 3 use regular unleaded, but for the same motor under MX-5 it says use premium. Seems like Mazda doesn't even know what they are talking about.

I think you need to do a lot more research before you come here spouting off about things that you know nothing about. The two motors are not the same, and Mazda does know what it is talking about.
Internally, the two motors are pretty much the same. The tune on the MX5 is tweaked a bit for more throttle response and a couple other things.
The reason that the MX5 needs 91 octane is to prevent detonation. When detonation is detected, the ECU pulls timing until it stops. This means a power loss. The Skyactiv engine needs a high level of exhaust scavenging to prevent detonation using 87 octane. This is accomplished on the Mazda 3 using a tri-y header that separates the exhaust pulses and prevents them from returning spent gasses into the cylinder. Unfortunately, this header does not fit in the MX5 tunnel, so it gets a regular shorty header type exhaust. This header can't scavenge nearly as well so 91 octane is required to prevent excessive detonation. There is an aftermarket tri-way for the MX5 that makes a significant power improvement.

MX-5 is 1113KG, Mazda 3 Sedan is 1303KG. Are you telling me 190KG difference determines a sport car vs. sedan? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
Looking for value added feedback - not a pissing contest.

As for not being much of a sports car, ask the significant number of high dollar sports car drivers who have had their butts handed to them by a 155 hp car. Also, the mx5 is significantly faster then the Mazda 3.
Feedback? You are getting it. If you don't like what you are hearing, oh well. Get over it.

Again, original question was about the motor and facts. Sure Its sport looking - and likely fun to drive no doubt, and yes 410lbs of weight is a good chunk that would help. but at the end of the day it still 155hp NA sports car. It likely is a little faster than the 3, but unless your talking quarter seconds on track its not going to be a giant notice of a difference once you take the "fun" level out of it. .

Quarter seconds? How about 10 seconds? Thats how much faster the MX5 is around The Streets of Willow vs the much vaunted 707hp Dodge Charger Hellcat. Get over the power trip and learn what a real sports car is.
You do realize that the MX5 is the single most raced car around the world?

 

[rdf_mz3]

Here's some facts excerpted from Mazda's website to compare these two engines.

2017 Mazda MX-5 Engine Specifications:
Engine type SKYACTIV®1 -G 2.0L DOHC 16-valve 4-cylinder with VVT
Horsepower 155 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque 148 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm
Redline 6800 rpm
Displacement (cc) 1998
Bore x stroke (mm) 83.5 x 91.2
Compression ratio 13 : 1
Fuel system Electronically controlled fuel injection
Recommended fuel Premium unleaded, 91 octane or greater
Minimum octane requirement (R+M/2) Regular unleaded, 87 octane or greater
Valvetrain Chain-driven dual overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder with variable intake valve timing (VVT)
Ignition system Distributor-less ignition
Engine block Aluminum alloy
Cylinder head Aluminum alloy
Emission control type (Fed/Cal) ULEV / Tier2 Bin5


2017 Mazda 3 Engine Specifications (2.0L):
Engine type SKYACTIV®-G1 2.0L DOHC 4-cylinder with VVT
Horsepower 155 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque 150 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Redline 6800 rpm
Displacement (cc) 1998
Bore x stroke (mm) 83.5 x 91.2
Compression ratio 13.0 : 1
Fuel system Advanced Direct Injection
Recommended fuel Regular unleaded
Valvetrain Chain-driven dual overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder with variable intake valve timing (VVT)
Ignition system Direct coil-on-plug electronic ignition with platinum-tipped spark plugs
Engine block Aluminum alloy
Cylinder head Aluminum alloy
Emission control type (Fed/Cal) PZEV


I highlighted the stated differences. Note that the differences in torque rating @ RPM, and different emission control type. Other than the external differences required due to packaging in a FWD vs RWD platform and ancillary parts, the engine internals are identical. The TUNING is the difference where the premium fuel comes into play, but it is not obvious from just the specs above.

Clearly the MX-5 must be running a more aggressive timing to net a broader torque curve that pushes its torque peak closer to its HP peak, making it more suitable to a sports car application. The 3 is tuned to hit its torque peak at relatively low RPMs and then fizzle out above that, which is fine for a typical family car. If you were to compare dyno curves for HP & Torque vs. RPM between a stock MX-5 & Mazda3, you'll see this in the curves.



^No. See above, it's in the tuning. A few degrees of timing advance drives the recommendation for premium.

Perfect, thank you for that - that should put that to rest. Appreciate the informative response. I was not aware of those differences.

 

[rdf_mz3]

I think you need to do a lot more research before you come here spouting off about things that you know nothing about. The two motors are not the same, and Mazda does know what it is talking about.
Internally, the two motors are pretty much the same. The tune on the MX5 is tweaked a bit for more throttle response and a couple other things.

Not spouting off - asked a question about engine internals and we've talked about everything but. Also a little hard to take you serious when in one sentence you say the motors are not the same, and then literally the next sentence you say they are pretty much the same. Your words not mine.

I am not doubting the MX-5 is faster, better than the 3 if racing is what your after. And there a likely more parts for the MX-5. However for a top line sportscar I was taken back that it only has 155hp. Considering the Mazdaspeed 3, although heaver produced far better numbers.

I will give you credit tho, I was not aware of the lacking headers in the MX-5.

Lastly, don't mind what I'm hearing and never claimed to know it all - that's why I asked the questions. I respect everyone opinion even if I don't agree with it.

No issues here. Just hoping to find some engine internal parts.

Hope I didn't come across ignorant - wasn't the intention

 

[arathol]

Not spouting off - asked a question about engine internals and we've talked about everything but. Also a little hard to take you serious when in one sentence you say the motors are not the same, and then literally the next sentence you say they are pretty much the same. Your words not mine.

I am not doubting the MX-5 is faster, better than the 3 if racing is what your after. And there a likely more parts for the MX-5. However for a top line sportscar I was taken back that it only has 155hp. Considering the Mazdaspeed 3, although heaver produced far better numbers.

I will give you credit tho, I was not aware of the lacking headers in the MX-5.

Lastly, don't mind what I'm hearing and never claimed to know it all - that's why I asked the questions. I respect everyone opinion even if I don't agree with it.

No issues here. Just hoping to find some engine internal parts.

Hope I didn't come across ignorant - wasn't the intention

Mechanically, they are the same, same block, same internals. They are different engines though, different tunes, different external peripherals.

How do you figure the MS3 produced better numbers?
2013 MS3, ~3300 lbs, 263 hp, 0-60 6.4 seconds
2016 MX5, ~2300 lbs, 155 hp, 0-60 5.9 seconds
The MS3 has violent torque steer, exhibits lots of understeer, it does not handle as well, the clutch is not great, the suspension is really stiff etc.
The MX5 has no such problems. It is quicker, it handles better, it rides better, it shifts better, it stops better, what more do you want?
What numbers are better and how is the MS3 better than the MX5?
There is more to performance than numbers that you read in car magazines. Numbers tend not to mean much in the real world. Drive some cars and you'll learn that.

 

[Midnightsky228]

Not spouting off - asked a question about engine internals and we've talked about everything but. Also a little hard to take you serious when in one sentence you say the motors are not the same, and then literally the next sentence you say they are pretty much the same. Your words not mine.

I am not doubting the MX-5 is faster, better than the 3 if racing is what your after. And there a likely more parts for the MX-5. However for a top line sportscar I was taken back that it only has 155hp. Considering the Mazdaspeed 3, although heaver produced far better numbers.

I will give you credit tho, I was not aware of the lacking headers in the MX-5.

Lastly, don't mind what I'm hearing and never claimed to know it all - that's why I asked the questions. I respect everyone opinion even if I don't agree with it.

No issues here. Just hoping to find some engine internal parts.

Hope I didn't come across ignorant - wasn't the intention

What makes you think that engine internals for an economy class car would exist at all? Why in the heck would you even consider something like that when better performance cars exist that you can purchase? Seems to me like your suffering from I can mod anything to go faster disease. The cure is simple, learn more about cars, learn that if you want corvette level performance you need to buy a corvette lol. If you can't afford it, save your money instead of trying to make an econobox go faster. Ever heard of the Focus ST? The Mazda 3 Speed? Both are far better platforms for power mods than a base Mazda 3. Fiesta ST with a healthy cobb stage kit? So many better options out there man. If your willing to spend thousands of dollars trying to squeeze another 50hp from a base Mazda 3 then I highly recommend selling/trading your Mazda 3 for something better, factory boosted, and start there. Some may disagree with me, but the fact is simple, you want to go faster, and to do that without wasting money requires a better platform to work with. I highly recommend the Focus ST or Fiesta ST, maybe a Cobalt Turbo(2008-2010), Genesis Coupe? Mustang Ecoboost? Oh and stay away from JDM RHD imports, they require more money than its worth, ask my old Subaru how I learned that. They seem like a wicked deal, but their not, unless you have lots of money and don't require a reliable daily driver.

 

[darvetis]

What makes you think that engine internals for an economy class car would exist at all? Why in the heck would you even consider something like that when better performance cars exist that you can purchase? Seems to me like your suffering from I can mod anything to go faster disease. The cure is simple, learn more about cars, learn that if you want corvette level performance you need to buy a corvette lol. If you can't afford it, save your money instead of trying to make an econobox go faster. Ever heard of the Focus ST? The Mazda 3 Speed? Both are far better platforms for power mods than a base Mazda 3. Fiesta ST with a healthy cobb stage kit? So many better options out there man. If your willing to spend thousands of dollars trying to squeeze another 50hp from a base Mazda 3 then I highly recommend selling/trading your Mazda 3 for something better, factory boosted, and start there. Some may disagree with me, but the fact is simple, you want to go faster, and to do that without wasting money requires a better platform to work with. I highly recommend the Focus ST or Fiesta ST, maybe a Cobalt Turbo(2008-2010), Genesis Coupe? Mustang Ecoboost? Oh and stay away from JDM RHD imports, they require more money than its worth, ask my old Subaru how I learned that. They seem like a wicked deal, but their not, unless you have lots of money and don't require a reliable daily driver.

rdfrederick87 asked a perfectly reasonable question, in my opinion. Heck, you can even purchase upgraded engine components for a VW Beetle. Cut him some slack!

 

[Midnightsky228]

rdfrederick87 asked a perfectly reasonable question, in my opinion. Heck, you can even purchase upgraded engine components for a VW Beetle. Cut him some slack!

Many VW beetles come factory turbo'd, easier to work with them versus N/A from factory. Anything is possible with money, but why waste money when you don't have to......

 

[arathol]

Many VW beetles come factory turbo'd, easier to work with them versus N/A from factory. Anything is possible with money, but why waste money when you don't have to......

I think he was referring to the real VW Bug with the air cooled flat 4. They have been made since the 1930s and have been raced and modified since the 1950s. It is no wonder there is a whole universe of performance parts for it. The VW flat four block is a virtual blank slate for hot rodding, unlike the SkyActivG motor. The SkyActiv is designed for efficiency, not for racing. Its not strongly built. You can't bore the cylinders out. You can't stroke it. It has a problem with detonation once you get into higher hp numbers. Its not a good base for either a high rpm motor or a high hp motor. With forced induction its good for about 250 hp. In all reality you won't get much more reliably. Even then, its new territory so nobody really knows how long the 2.0 will last with 250 hp.

 

[rdf_mz3]

Mechanically, they are the same, same block, same internals. They are different engines though, different tunes, different external peripherals.

How do you figure the MS3 produced better numbers?
2013 MS3, ~3300 lbs, 263 hp, 0-60 6.4 seconds
2016 MX5, ~2300 lbs, 155 hp, 0-60 5.9 seconds
The MS3 has violent torque steer, exhibits lots of understeer, it does not handle as well, the clutch is not great, the suspension is really stiff etc.
The MX5 has no such problems. It is quicker, it handles better, it rides better, it shifts better, it stops better, what more do you want?
What numbers are better and how is the MS3 better than the MX5?
There is more to performance than numbers that you read in car magazines. Numbers tend not to mean much in the real world. Drive some cars and you'll learn that.

Again, talking Motor - not sure why people cant grasp that concept. Yes the MX5 is quicker - but the motor in the MS3 is better than the MX5. I even said the car itself was heaver, which would lead to likely a slower car. OP was about motor internals - lets talk about that.

Hypothetically if took a MX-5 motor in dropped it in a 3 I would get no real gain, if I took a MS3 motor and dropped it in my M3 - clearly I would being that it is 100+ HP over my current motor. Proving that in fact the motor is better.

People need to read the post and not tell other what to read, driven plenty cars chief - this is my 3rd car rebuild, just happens to be my first Mazda so I'm looking for some help.

 

[rdf_mz3]

Seems to me like your suffering from I can mod anything to go faster disease. The cure is simple, learn more about cars, learn that if you want corvette level performance you need to buy a corvette lol. If you can't afford it, save your money instead of trying to make an econobox go faster. Ever heard of the Focus ST? The Mazda 3 Speed? Both are far better platforms for power mods than a base

lol For starters, they didn't offer the Speed in 2016, or else I would have picked it up. I didn't by an older one cause I wanted a 0K car to work with and didn't want someones driven hard car to start with. Secondly its call I enjoy building/modifying cars, built 2 cars prior - I am not chasing corvette speed. I enjoy working on cars. Decided I'd give Mazda a try.

Some off us don't like the "off the shelf" and take pride in progressing a car

 

[rdf_mz3]

IThe SkyActiv is designed for efficiency, not for racing. Its not strongly built. You can't bore the cylinders out. You can't stroke it. It has a problem with detonation once you get into higher hp numbers. Its not a good base for either a high rpm motor or a high hp motor. With forced induction its good for about 250 hp. In all reality you won't get much more reliably. Even then, its new territory so nobody really knows how long the 2.0 will last with 250 hp.

While yes I agree with your racing comment, the one thing that is nice is the high compression which I am trying to hang onto. If (like in my OP) could get stronger internals I would take a stab at turbo. Anything right now over 5+ PSI would like result in catastrophic failure, but if the motor itself could take it - a small introduction of boost will yield high numbers based on the compression. I would likely need E85 to avoid other issues but that's fine - this isn't my daily driver.

 

[louisbosco]

too many replies to quote individually.

i disagree that if you want corvette speed you should buy a corvette. have you not seen MightycarMods (MCM). they represent the aussie pride in building something. eg. supergramps, 9 second cresda, stageas and more. that jdm RHD is the proper thing to us unlike you guys driving on the wrong side of the road. although with fair reason, it's probably more cost in the US where jdm cars could be a rare sight, which for us down under would be the same for american cars like the 'vette or the camaro. bloody corvettes would be somewhere about the 200-250k after conversion and by that i mean LHD to RHD..

also disagree that the mazda 3 with the 2.5 is an econobox. within reasonable competitive category, i've left many GTI, stock XR5,both STs and kept pace with a SSV commodore. from my experience in tuning both Euro and JDM, i'd say this engine is good for 300awhp (CX5 swap) at the very least. unfortunately, the options aren't many and it requires the proper amount of research to get this done. what matters most is the ECU tuning itself and the boost could be 1/2 bar (7PSI) to 1 bar (14psi). MX5s with this engine is already running 1/2 bar boost..