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.
2016 3rd Gen Mazda Engine Internals for Rebuild
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,
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,
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 12 of 32 Posts
Looking for value added feedback - not a pissing contest.
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. .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.
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.
Perfect, thank you for that - that should put that to rest. Appreciate the informative response. I was not aware of those differences.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.
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 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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.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
Some off us don't like the "off the shelf" and take pride in progressing a car
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.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.
Just think about that for a minute. That's like saying if you put the MX-5 motor inside the MS3 with no weight reduction that it would produce the same numbers.Once again, there are none except maybe a cam. If you want to be fast there are other ways. You are not going to make big power from this motor.
Thats not how it works. You are still chasing numbers. That does not mean its better in any way, it just means it makes more power. It does not mean in any way that the car will be faster. :bash::bash:
So your telling me I can just jam 15 PSI down its throat and the internals will be just fine because its FI - get real. Perhaps your the one that needs to do some more research - to think the factory fuel efficient naturally aspirated motor will take any set amount of boost is silly, especially if it was driven hard. Agreed, transmission would need to get upgraded as well to support the extra load, but need to figure what the load is first.Once again, you need to do more research on the SkyActiv engine. The 13:1 compression ratio is the theoretical maximum based on bore and stroke. The way the motor works varies the compression according to the engine load.
You don't need stronger internals for the FI setup. Current FI units get about 250 hp from the 2.0. Thats more than enough for this car. You don't want to go much more than that or you risk blowing up the rest of the driveline. The transmission, clutch, halfshafts all would need to be upgraded. There is no way to be fast on a road course in a high power FWD car without a limited slip front differential.
Sure it was faster around Willow springs because it was set up correctly- but you have to give reason. If the car is structured for track but lacks power it will loose, but so will a car that has power but lacks structure - it goes both ways.Again, this chasing numbers is foolish. The car will never be a race car no matter how much wish it to be. If you are going to throw a lot of money at your car, get the important stuff and do it right. There is more to making a car go fast than power. Better tires- the OEM rubber sucks. Better brakes - if you are going to go fast you better be able to stop just as fast. Better suspension - if you are going to do some canyon driving or some such hooliganism you need to do more than go in a straight line. Same things apply if you intend to do track days. Why do you think that the MX5 was 10 seconds faster around Willow Springs? It wasn't because it had more power. It was because it is a faster car. There is a big difference.
If you want inexpensive use able power, get a tune. There are a couple good sources. That will get you to almost 200hp if done right.
As for upgrades. I am already 90% of the way through those, that's why I am asking about motor. I am currently running upgraded springs, struts, rubber, wheels, sway bars, cambers, strut bar, end links - Just waiting on brakes. I haven't done a tune yet because I am waiting on the motor solution if any. I am not going to tune it and then re-tune it after rebuild.
Lol Thanks for coming out and contributing with such an educated post - The other thing I have learned recently is that most owners seems to also be real good keyboard warriors.MX-5's have never been hefty on power right off the factory line. It's their history, it's tradition. If you're just now finding out that MX-5's have fairly low power, then you definitely don't know what you're talking about. Welcome to automotives little guy!
Enjoy your day.
Sincerely,
Little Guy
That's just it tho - everyone speculates what I want without readying the original post. Never said I want 450hp. Was looking for internals. End goal is likely boost and ideally between 250-300. But even with tune, not boost if you track a car on factor internals your likely headed for trouble. My second car was a Honda and I ended up throwing a rod because I was stupid to think it would handle it.Fiesta ST, Cobb stage kit, plus suspension, ect ect.......Focus ST, Cobb stage kit, plus suspension, ect ect.......both are not "perfect" off the shelf but do give you a much better platform to work with for power modifications which is obviously what your chasing. You like modding cars, awesome, thats why many of us are here. But you need to be realistic about your desire to gain power from this particular Mazda powertrain, it just wasn't built for it, as you are now finding out. Personally I would have done more research before taking possession of a brand new car that I had plans to modify, especially if power increase is on your list. Your being lambasted simply because you didn't do your research before taking possession and beginning the build. Your over halfway done and only just now researching about power mods, poor planning makes for a poorly finished project. I promise you, your better off trading in the Mazda now for a Focus ST and modding that thru the same process your attempting on the Mazda. It will be a much more enjoyable experience and much more rewarding. Don't let us all stop you either from continuing the Mazda build if that is truly what you desire, but just be prepared for disappointment in the engine modification department. Happy motoring.
To say I'll be disappointed, doubt it. That's part of the fun, when someone says you can't or they won't you find a way. People don't usually make parts for a few years because of R&D and it's even slower here in North America. Thialand seems to be all over the Mazda. And if your right and no one does, then the new CX-9 has already came out with a boosted engine that has a lower compression to support turbo. I wait till one ends up in a scrap yard from rear end and pull the motor and see what happens.
Quit telling me to do research and do some yourself. And quit contradicting yourself. "You need to lower the CR and strengthen some other components" that's exactly what this post is about - I'm looking for internals lol. Do you even know the difference between 14:1 and 10:1 and how boost would effect an NA motor, and especially how boost pressure changes based on compression. That's exactly why Mazda didn't leave the CX-9 motor at 14:1 and boost it.As I said before, this motor is not a good platform for major power and the best you can reasonably expect with FI right now is 250 hp or so without risking blowing it up. That means not using 15 lbs of boost. 7 maybe 8 but not 15. You would need to lower the CR to do that and strengthen some other components. Mazda has already done this with the new CX9 with the 2.5 turbo motor that has 10:1 compression. Again, you really need to research how this motor works before you go throwing money at it. .
Again, read. I said it goes both ways. A car that has structure but lacks power will loose, a car that has power but lacks structure will also loose. You need to find the right mix.Both cars were as built, no upgrades. So far, your reasoning appears to equate power to being fast on the track. The above cars proves that assumption to be incorrect. .
I'm done with the pissing contest - enjoy your day.
1 - 12 of 32 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
2004 to 2020 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums
Come discuss all things Mazda 3 from the Mazda GT hatchback to Mazdaspeed, sedan and sport.
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
