2004 to 2020 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
2021 Mazda 3 Turbo
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

Went frame-by-frame to line up the exact moment the foot was let off the brake and the exact moment when each car hit 60.

Turbo manages to get to 60 in 6.8 seconds.
91 octane & not broken-in.

NA manages it in 7.9 seconds.
87 octane + brake boost, ~25,000 miles on the odometer.
93 octane + brake boost & 36,000 miles on the odometer, I can reliably get 7.6 seconds.

The 0-60 is not that much quicker than the NA, but the Turbo seems to have a significant advantage at pulling over 60 mph.
The NA does pretty well up to 60 (1st and 2nd gear), but from 3rd, the acceleration diminishes quickly.

UPDATE: [email protected] posted a 0-60 tracked clip with a time of 5.75 seconds.
Significantly faster than the NA. It beats a Mercedes CLA.
 

·
Registered
2012 Mazda 3 GX MT5
Joined
·
349 Posts
Cool stuff ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Thought mazda claimed 0-60 for the na at 6.9s. Is the NA fwd? Thanks for this though, beats trying to start and stop a timer lol.
 

·
Registered
2021 Mazda 3 Turbo
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thought mazda claimed 0-60 for the na at 6.9s. Is the NA fwd? Thanks for this though, beats trying to start and stop a timer lol.
The NA is the FWD Sedan, Turbo is AWD Hatch.
I thought Mazda didn't have an official time, but Motortrend had a time of 7.0 seconds. In any case, I only got that time once or twice in the entirety of my ownership; likely due to climate and individual vehicle differences.

I'll test drive the Turbo sedan tomorrow, so I'll see if the difference is palpable.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,670 Posts
If you follow along through the history of claimed 0-60 times the numbers are all over the place from 6.5 to 9 seconds depending on who is doing the testing, what year, what model, how the testing is done etc. Most real world reports are in the low 7s though.
 

·
Registered
2018 Mazda 3 GT
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
Speed really isn't Mazda's goal anymore.
CK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
6.8 to 60 is not worth upgrading for.
I will just keep my 2019.
I agree. But I think it will ultimately prove better than that.
This kid's speedo is hard to read at the given angle, but I was able to time him consistently around 6 flat on the final run, that with a green engine. SKIP TO 735
Further confirmation is his 30 to 60 times. around 3.5. And there were 2 aboard. Magazine testers time solo. These are GTI or better times. On the other hand most of these Y tubers are running mid 6s. Still not too shabby with 2 aboard and green motors.
My N.A. with just me on board runs 7.6 and 4.8. The really big difference is 30 to 60 time and also the one that can be most consistently demonstrated. I am still hopeful we may see some sub 6 second runs published once the embargo is lifted.
 

·
Registered
2021 Mazda 3 Turbo
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
6.8 to 60 is not worth upgrading for.
I will just keep my 2019.
Speed really isn't Mazda's goal anymore.
CK
Speed is definitely not the reason to trade up.

My 2019 has given me hell. I've had at least one issue every month since I bought the car. 4 visits to the service department in October was the last straw.
I'm trading up for a smoother powertrain (2019 NA has jerking/bucking issues), no rattles & vibrations, Traffic Jam Assist, Traffic Sign Recognition, Heated Mirrors, Heated Steering Wheel, AWD, and the 360 camera.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
I agree. But I think it will ultimately prove better than that.
This kid's speedo is hard to read at the given angle, but I was able to time him consistently around 6 flat on the final run, that with a green engine. SKIP TO 735
Further confirmation is his 30 to 60 times. around 3.5. And there were 2 aboard. Magazine testers time solo. These are GTI or better times. On the other hand most of these Y tubers are running mid 6s. Still not too shabby with 2 aboard and green motors.
My N.A. with just me on board runs 7.6 and 4.8. The really big difference is 30 to 60 time and also the one that can be most consistently demonstrated. I am still hopeful we may see some sub 6 second runs published once the embargo is lifted.
Ooo yeah his third pull was much nicer. About a 1.3s improvement. Still at least its not instant buyers regret for the NA lol...
 

·
Registered
2018 Mazda 3 GT
Joined
·
2,366 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
UPDATE: [email protected] posted a 0-60 tracked clip with a time of 5.75 seconds.
Significantly faster than the NA. It beats a Mercedes CLA.
The 5.75 figure is actually quite impressive. Notice how he floor the gas while hold the brake firm for a fraction of second before the start, that is the typical turbo acceleration protocol ==> To spool up the turbo and take up the slack/play on the auto tranny, convertor etc. before releasing the brake. Most effective, but very hard on the transmission and the whole drive train. I would not do that to my own car normally.

I would probably do some similar run once my car has 3000K on it, just to see how it handles, especially in the wet. Tire breaking loose in the wet, especially an (front favored) AWD car, behaved quite differently than a RWD chassis modified to be AWD. Just need to understand how it will behave at its limit.
 

·
Registered
'15 Mazda3
Joined
·
164 Posts
Those are some really lazy shifts. How much boost do you lose between shifts?

I agree. But I think it will ultimately prove better than that.
This kid's speedo is hard to read at the given angle, but I was able to time him consistently around 6 flat on the final run, that with a green engine. SKIP TO 735
Further confirmation is his 30 to 60 times. around 3.5. And there were 2 aboard. Magazine testers time solo. These are GTI or better times. On the other hand most of these Y tubers are running mid 6s. Still not too shabby with 2 aboard and green motors.
My N.A. with just me on board runs 7.6 and 4.8. The really big difference is 30 to 60 time and also the one that can be most consistently demonstrated. I am still hopeful we may see some sub 6 second runs published once the embargo is lifted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
The biggest issue with this car and a turbo engine is traction. You have 310lbs of torque going to the front wheels to start. The AWD system is the same as the NA engine system. It starts off at 98-99 percent at the front then goes rearward. If the AWD split was 50 to 50 to start plus having say 235/45/18 tires vs 215/45/18 tires you would have much quicker times and better grip. Unfortunately, it seems Mazda just dropped the turbo engine in there and didn't make any adjustments. Also, an LSD would definitely help as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I haven't seen the car break traction in any of those 0-60mph (maybe it does and I missed it); the gear changes just seem very slow.
 

·
Registered
2021 Mazda 3 Turbo
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The biggest issue with this car and a turbo engine is traction. You have 310lbs of torque going to the front wheels to start. The AWD system is the same as the NA engine system. It starts off at 98-99 percent at the front then goes rearward. If the AWD split was 50 to 50 to start plus having say 235/45/18 tires vs 215/45/18 tires you would have much quicker times and better grip. Unfortunately, it seems Mazda just dropped the turbo engine in there and didn't make any adjustments. Also, an LSD would definitely help as well.
I haven't seen the car break traction in any of those 0-60mph (maybe it does and I missed it); the gear changes just seem very slow.
I can now go beyond speculation.

I test drove the Turbo sedan today and can assure you traction is not a big issue. I tried a brake-boosted launch and got around 6.5 seconds (87 octane, Sport Mode, ESC Off), and only had minor traction loss.
It seems the drivetrain either proactively sends power to the rear, or sends power quickly to the rear once traction is lost.

The transmission was definitely holding the car back. In gear, the car pulls hard, but as soon as you have to shift, there is noticeable hesitation.
Despite this, it still feels A LOT quicker than the NA. Was on the fence before, definitely buying one now.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,670 Posts
It seems the drivetrain either proactively sends power to the rear, or sends power quickly to the rear once traction is lost.

The transmission was definitely holding the car back. In gear, the car pulls hard, but as soon as you have to shift, there is noticeable hesitation.
Despite this, it still feels A LOT quicker than the NA. Was on the fence before, definitely buying one now.
The i-Activ system is pretty complex, there is a lot going on to keep the traction going to the right wheels. There are several videos out there with Dave Coleman explaining how its works and why.
It seems that at least 1st gear has some sort of limitation going on though. I've noticed that flat out the 1-2 shift is at 4500, where after that its closer to 5500. You can see it pretty clearly in the video in post #1 in this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
The biggest issue with this car and a turbo engine is traction. You have 310lbs of torque going to the front wheels to start. The AWD system is the same as the NA engine system. It starts off at 98-99 percent at the front then goes rearward. If the AWD split was 50 to 50 to start plus having say 235/45/18 tires vs 215/45/18 tires you would have much quicker times and better grip. Unfortunately, it seems Mazda just dropped the turbo engine in there and didn't make any adjustments. Also, an LSD would definitely help as well.
The video above (first post, 2nd video) shows 0-30 in 2.1 with no audible tire spin. The best GTI launch I can find, with DSG, launch control , 225 tires and limited slip is 2.3 to 30
Based on that I would say the awd system is performing just fine. Bigger tires/wheels would just be more rotational mass to overcome and would likely slow it marginally. Could help handling though. 320lbs on 93 octane.
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top