2004 to 2020 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums banner
21 - 40 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
I forgot it has AWD which makes a hell of a difference, I was comparing it to my previous car an 275hp I30N which was 6 seconds for 0 to 60 you wouldn't think a car with 25hp less could do it in less than 6 seconds. yes unbelievably the 3 here with the G engine is really only 120bhp which is why I said most 3s sold here are now the X despite it being about £2,000 more for the extra performance it's well worth the extra money and now it's been updated it gets better fuel consumption despite having over 60bhp more it's a no brainer here in the UK, it's a shame we don't get the option of a 2.5L here. and only 55% of the torque are you sure about that ? I will have to look that up I am talking about the e skyactiv x.
Just looked it up bugger me you're right no wonder it goes so well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
=https://www.automobile-catalog.com/...ack_2_0_e-skyactiv-x_186_skyactive-drive.html
The latest version on the sky x makes 177 ft lbs. to the turbo's 320 177/320=55.3percent. HP is 186/250 =74.4 %
I also found it interesting to note the new 186 hp sky x has to rev to 4 grand to reach its torque peak, instead of the 3 grand of the older 180 hp version, so now it's curve is very similar to the N.A.2.5 g, but peaking at 9 ft lbs lower. https://www.automobile-catalog.com/...0_2_0_skyactiv-x_180_fwd_skyactive-drive.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
=https://www.automobile-catalog.com/...ack_2_0_e-skyactiv-x_186_skyactive-drive.html
The latest version on the sky x makes 177 ft lbs. to the turbo's 320 177/320=55.3percent. HP is 186/250 =74.4 %
I also found it interesting to note the new 186 hp sky x has to rev to 4 grand to reach its torque peak, instead of the 3 grand of the older 180 hp version, so now it's curve is very similar to the N.A.2.5 g, but peaking at 9 ft lbs lower. https://www.automobile-catalog.com/...0_2_0_skyactiv-x_180_fwd_skyactive-drive.html
It's not bad figures considering it's 25% smaller capacity compared to the 2.5L, but yes I do have to rev it a bit to get the best out of it though it does feel surprisingly quick once you do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Having just purchased a new e skyactiv x I have been very surprised how fast it feels, coming from a I30N I was expecting the 3 to feel fairly sluggish by comparison, whilst it's not quite as fast there is not the drop in performance I was expecting considering there is supposed to be 90bhp less it makes me feel that maybe Mazda are underplaying the actual power and performance of the car a bit like VW with the Latest Golf gti clubsport has anybody actually tested the real output of the new e skyactiv x?
Im also in the UK and have recently bought a Mazda3 e Skyactiv X as well. Tbh, I wouldnt praise it for its turn of pace but the refinement, steering, suspension set up, manual gearbox action and interior quality are all amazingly good. I test drove pretty much everything else in the segment and the 2021 Mazda3 knocks them all into a cocked hat. Its my first Mazda and Im dead impressed (y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Im also in the UK and have recently bought a Mazda3 e Skyactiv X as well. Tbh, I wouldnt praise it for its turn of pace but the refinement, steering, suspension set up, manual gearbox action and interior quality are all amazingly good. I test drove pretty much everything else in the segment and the 2021 Mazda3 knocks them all into a cocked hat. Its my first Mazda and Im dead impressed (y)
This is my second, I had a 2015 sport nav 165bhp, much as I loved that car this is definitely a step up I came from a 275bhp I30N and really don't notice that much of drop in performance, well considering it's 90bhp down on it, not trying to teach granny how to suck eggs but you do have to wind the 3 up a bit, max power is not delivered until you hit 6000rpm if you have been used to smaller capacity turbo cars it can take a bit of getting used to changing the way you drive, apologies if you already know this and 0 to 62 in 8.1 seconds is pretty good it's as I said harder to access this unless you basically thrash it a bit this can feel a little strange at first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
This is my second, I had a 2015 sport nav 165bhp, much as I loved that car this is definitely a step up I came from a 275bhp I30N and really don't notice that much of drop in performance, well considering it's 90bhp down on it, not trying to teach granny how to suck eggs but you do have to wind the 3 up a bit, max power is not delivered until you hit 6000rpm if you have been used to smaller capacity turbo cars it can take a bit of getting used to changing the way you drive, apologies if you already know this and 0 to 62 in 8.1 seconds is pretty good it's as I said harder to access this unless you basically thrash it a bit this can feel a little strange at first.
Fully appreciate what youre saying. I havent been pushing it at all as Ive still got under 1,000 miles on the clock. I didnt buy the car for its pace anyway but rather for its compact size, handing and refinement. The latter are on a par with cars Ive owned costing twice as much so pretty impressed :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
The biggest factors in achieving good mileage are whether they are highway miles vs city miles, the speeds driven, and the drivers' habits. My 2015 2.0L has averaged almost 45MPG over 30K miles since I bought it new in 2015, all because I drove it almost exclusively on the highway. In contrast, since the virus from China has swept over the world, my driving habits are no longer 90% highway, and I'm no longer getting such fuel economy :-(
Yeah, our car is really just driven in suburbia and we don't see more than 30 mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Fully appreciate what youre saying. I havent been pushing it at all as Ive still got under 1,000 miles on the clock. I didnt buy the car for its pace anyway but rather for its compact size, handing and refinement. The latter are on a par with cars Ive owned costing twice as much so pretty impressed :)
I only just passed 1000 miles myself so only recently put the pedal to the floor, you will be pleasantly surprised how it goes once you get up near the red line, one thing I have noticed is that 6th gear is really an overdrive the slightest hill if your doing less than 50 will have you changing down, 5th gear is totally fine though down to much lower speeds it's just getting used to a different way of driving I have apart from my previous Mazda 3 had turbo charged hot hatches for the past 30 odd years thought at my age I should be driving something a little more grown up lol, so far I'm very happy and 50mpg average is a pleasant trade off, got near 60mpg last week on a 80 mile run to Lyme Regis and that was with the A/C on all the way down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I have posted before that this website compiles published road test performance data for most cars sold in Europe. UK SA-X owners may find these 0-100 kph (about 0-62 mph) results of interest. Disclaimer - the current revised SA-X may be different.

SA-X M Hybrid 180PS
Claimed 8.2s
Actual 9.5s (mean of 9 results)

SA-G M Hybrid 122PS
Claimed 10.4s
Actual 9.8 (mean of 14 results)

SA-G M Hybrid 150PS
Claimed 9.1s
Actual 9.0 (mean of 5 results)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
I have posted before that this website compiles published road test performance data for most cars sold in Europe. UK SA-X owners may find these 0-100 kph (about 0-62 mph) results of interest. Disclaimer - the current revised SA-X may be different.

SA-X M Hybrid 180PS
Claimed 8.2s
Actual 9.5s (mean of 9 results)

SA-G M Hybrid 122PS
Claimed 10.4s
Actual 9.8 (mean of 14 results)

SA-G M Hybrid 150PS
Claimed 9.1s
Actual 9.0 (mean of 5 results)
I find it difficult to believe a car with 58bhp more is only .3 of a second faster, that can't be the manual fwd all the test figures I have seen and read have the e skyactiv x at around the low 8s for 0 to 62. and the 150bhp G is faster? not sure how that's possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 · (Edited)
I find it difficult to believe a car with 58bhp more is only .3 of a second faster, that can't be the manual fwd all the test figures I have seen and read have the e skyactiv x at around the low 8s for 0 to 62. and the 150bhp G is faster than a 180hp X? not sure how that's possible.
I'm fairly sure that figure given for the X will be for an awd model, they are quoted at around the low 9s here in the UK. I have looked up at least 5 different road tests for the manual fwd e skyactiv X and they are all around the very low 8s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I'm fairly sure that figure given for the X will be for an awd model, they are quoted at around the low 9s here in the UK. I have looked up at least 5 different road tests for the manual fwd e skyactiv X and they are all around the very low 8s.
I merely quote what the website reports and they state FWD. If you want to check the original road tests for yourself the data sources which they used are listed. As I mentioned this is for the original 180PS (2019) release of the SA-X not the current car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
I merely quote what the website reports and they state FWD. If you want to check the original road tests for yourself the data sources which they used are listed. As I mentioned this is for the original 180PS (2019) release of the SA-X not the current car.
I had a look, what I'm having difficulty getting my head around is how a car with 180ps is slower to 62 than one with 150ps it just doesn't make sense to me, something is wrong somewhere don't you think? for the claimed and actual figures to be so wide apart, I know the likes of you and me would find it hard to replicate the figures quoted in magazines but it still seems an awfully big discrepancy. Why do all the British car magazines have the X at the low 8s? I know because I did a lot of research before I bought mine, maybe the new model I have is faster as it has a bit more power and torque not sure if they have changed the gearing that might make a difference as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I had a look, what I'm having difficulty getting my head around is how a car with 180ps is slower to 62 than one with 150ps it just doesn't make sense to me, something is wrong somewhere don't you think? for the claimed and actual figures to be so wide apart, I know the likes of you and me would find it hard to replicate the figures quoted in magazines but it still seems an awfully big discrepancy. Why do all the British car magazines have the X at the low 8s? I know because I did a lot of research before I bought mine, maybe the new model I have is faster as it has a bit more power and torque not sure if they have changed the gearing that might make a difference as well.
I was coming from a 150PS 2L Mazda 3 so I looked at all the available early tests (print and YouTube) before deciding the SA-G would do for me. The general consensus seemed to be that the SA-X mostly gained better in gear acceleration, especially above 70 mph, but it was less smooth than the SA-G. If you use the website's Duel and Battle options to compare the two engines you can get a better idea of their relative performance. At least for me the SA-G acceleration is fine - provided you use the gears properly. It also pulls far better at low rpm than my previous car. I was not bothered by any better SA-X mpg as my mileage is low.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
I had a look, what I'm having difficulty getting my head around is how a car with 180ps is slower to 62 than one with 150ps it just doesn't make sense to me, something is wrong somewhere don't you think? for the claimed and actual figures to be so wide apart, I know the likes of you and me would find it hard to replicate the figures quoted in magazines but it still seems an awfully big discrepancy. Why do all the British car magazines have the X at the low 8s? I know because I did a lot of research before I bought mine, maybe the new model I have is faster as it has a bit more power and torque not sure if they have changed the gearing that might make a difference as well.
One factor against the x is weight. The U.S. 155 hp 2 liter sky g 2wd auto sedan weighs 2984. The U.K. 122 2 liter e sky g 2wd auto sedan weighs 3062 and the x a rather porky 3139 or 155lbs more than U.S 2 liter. All that is on the front wheels which cannot be good for handling. Even the U.S. 2.5 sky g is lighter than the x by 39 lbs.

Sources U.S. and U.K. Mazda web sites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 · (Edited)
One factor against the x is weight. The U.S. 155 hp 2 liter sky g 2wd auto sedan weighs 2984. The U.K. 122 2 liter e sky g 2wd auto sedan weighs 3062 and the x a rather porky 3139 or 155lbs more than U.S 2 liter. All that is on the front wheels which cannot be good for handling. Even the U.S. 2.5 sky g is lighter than the x by 39 lbs.

Sources U.S. and U.K. Mazda web sites.
But I suppose the manual fwd X must be a fair bit lighter and so faster than it's auto equivalent.
One factor against the x is weight. The U.S. 155 hp 2 liter sky g 2wd auto sedan weighs 2984. The U.K. 122 2 liter e sky g 2wd auto sedan weighs 3062 and the x a rather porky 3139 or 155lbs more than U.S 2 liter. All that is on the front wheels which cannot be good for handling. Even the U.S. 2.5 sky g is lighter than the x by 39 lbs.

Sources U.S. and U.K. Mazda web sites.
Ultimatespecs has the e skyactiv X manual at 2855lbs a fair bit lighter than the auto this will have a big effect on performance it's like carrying two extra passengers. there seems to be a big discrepancy in the weight of the e skyactiv X depending which site you look at I suspect the engine being very complicated probably accounts for any extra weight.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,408 Posts
I had a look, what I'm having difficulty getting my head around is how a car with 180ps is slower to 62 than one with 150ps it just doesn't make sense to me
Peak horse power is irrelevant.
Torque curve and area under the curve is the issue.

But I suppose the manual fwd X must be a fair bit lighter and so faster than it's auto equivalent.
For the most part AT equipped Mazda 3s have been shown to have slightly faster 0-60 times than MT cars. For instance, the 2017 2.5GT hatch was .6 seconds faster that the same MT equipped car.
SA-G GT Sport 6MT cars weigh in at 1433 kg, the same 6MT car with the SA-X motor is 1498 kg.
The SA-G GT Sport with a 6AT weighs 1464 kg, the SA-X GT Sport with 6AT is 1522 kg. This according to Mazda UK....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
I was comparing SKY X to US 2 liter and 2.5. engine weights only, and as the us 2 liter is not available in a manual, direct comparisons are not possible that way. However,
Mazda's web site uk says 3108 for the manual and 3190 for the sport tech sedans or 82 lb difference auto vs manual. If you want to make meaningful comparisons. all the numbers need be from the same source, and Mazda itself would seem a good place to start.

When both are awd (oops, 2wd) and auto the US 2.5 sedan is 90 lbs lighter than the UK e sky x
If you subtract the 168 lbs added with all wheel drive, the 2.5 turbo would only be 3229 or just 40 lbs heavier than the sky x 2 liter2wd auto. For both its power and displacement, its a very heavy complex engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
There is a big difference between the weight of a newly minted car and one which is driveable (with all necessary fluids and usually a 'standard' driver). You need to be sure to compare like for like between quoted weights. For example, Ze Perfs quote the SA-X manual spec as:
Weight claimed : 1320 kg / 2910 lb (DIN), 1395 kg (EU)
Weight (EU) : 1534 kg / 3382 lb (heaviest verified in running order)

Magazine test cars are likely to vary further in weight depending on what the testers are carrying. Frankly, no two identical production cars will always have identical performance and there are no standard conditions for obtaining third party test results. I suspect those factors cause more variation in published 0-60 times than a few percent difference in weight between models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
Peak horse power is irrelevant.
Torque curve and area under the curve is the issue.


For the most part AT equipped Mazda 3s have been shown to have slightly faster 0-60 times than MT cars. For instance, the 2017 2.5GT hatch was .6 seconds faster that the same MT equipped car.
SA-G GT Sport 6MT cars weigh in at 1433 kg, the same 6MT car with the SA-X motor is 1498 kg.
The SA-G GT Sport with a 6AT weighs 1464 kg, the SA-X GT Sport with 6AT is 1522 kg. This according to Mazda UK....
That's a fair bit more weight all the more surprising how economical it is then.
 
21 - 40 of 55 Posts
Top