Cool stuff ...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Speed really isn't Mazda's goal anymore.
CK

 

Look at vid I just posted on the other turbo thread. 5.75

Power comes to those who wait....

 

..and are willing to drive an automatic transmission.
CK

 

UPDATE: Had4mazdas@ 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

When I read car reviews I typically look at the 5-60 mph times. This is a much more realistic straight line test vs 0-60. Most people aren't going to rev to 3-4k then launch the car due to damaging the transmission. I think its great they dropped the turbo engine in there. I do have a bad feeling that due to lackluster sales of the 3 it might be discontinued in 4-5 years. Hoping it doesn't because its a fun little car.

I think eventually the 2.5 turbo will solely be in the Mazda 3 and CX-30. It looks like their new RWD/AWD platform for the Mazda 6, CX-5, CX-7, CX-9... will have a base 2.5 4 cylinder producing around 200 HP, some type of 4 cylinder plug in/hybrid with around 250 HP and a glorious inline 6 with hopefully around 270 up to 350 HP.

 

When I read car reviews I typically look at the 5-60 mph times. This is a much more realistic straight line test vs 0-60. Most people aren't going to rev to 3-4k then launch the car due to damaging the transmission.

I agree. In this more real world test, a N.A. 2.5 Mazda 3 fwd beats a Civic turbo sport (manual trans) 7.8 vs 8.1
Before dumping the clutch,0-60, the turbo gets time to spool up. 5-60, not so much.

https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2019-mazda3-civic-elantra-corolla-golf-scoring-complete-specs-1565370963.pdf

 

I'm looking at those numbers and the Mazda 3 gets better mpg in all those cars without a CVT or Turbo. Impressive for an NA engine. Also, significantly quieter than all the competition. Slap some Summer tires or Ultra High performance all seasons you can rally around town.

 

“A turbocharged engine with 250 horsepower is on offer, should you want to emphasize the "sport" in sport-ute with a 6.1-second run to 60 mph.” Car and Driver

Read this in C&D about the CX 5. Leaves me a bit confused reading the 0-60 numbers posted for the same engine in a 3.

 

Just wait until the 20th when embargo lifts and actual journalists do reviews.

 

 

Ask the guy who thinks his NA is close to the Turbo to try the comparison on snow or gravel!!

 

In case anyone wants to see a new Turbo street-raced against a WRX, whose driver may not be very good....go to 2:00....

 

I like it but no telling what abuse or ill conceived tuning mods the subie has endured in it's 3 or four year life.
Should e 0-60 in 5.3 to 5.7, unless STI which goes sub 5.

 

I just wish my M3 have a better transmission. The one that comes with the M3 series is not a very tight shifter, nor is it fast and firm. Definitely could be better, much better. Paddle shifter is, by and large, a joke; slow and clunky.

Someone high up in Hiroshima should be told of this.

On the other hand, if this same setup is used to drive the CX-5, which is much heavier, then probably the silver lining is that in the M3, its longevity is looking more favorable.

 

That's a good observation, I think the whole setup results a in low stressed power train vs most any other car of equal performance. I think that lack of stress could rub off on the driver as well. A relaxed performance car, polar opposite of the old noisy, torque steering, tire smoking Speed 3, which could be bad or good depending on what you are into.

 

 

5.8 0-60 slightly negative review

 

Its cause everybody expected it to be a hot hatch.

 

Yep, I think most of the reviewers mistake the target demographic for the car.
The WRX, golf, and Veloster N are for people who prefer a more raw driving feel (i.e. manual transmission) and practicality over interior quality/refinement & a smooth powertrain.

The Turbo 3 is made for those who are looking at entry-level german cars, like the Mercedes A-class, CLA, and the Audi A3. Relative to these, the 3 has both a better price and overall performance.

 

 

@7:08 launch, the rear end squats and takes off with a bit of tire spin. Good to look at.

 

So the Mazda3 pretty much is faster off the line than the Golf R without launch control.
It's exactly what I said here.

Yeah, with 1-foot-rollout and probably launch control (which I don't like).
I personally do not like the 1-foot-rollout because it doesn't test the gearbox performance off the line (which on the DSG, without launch control, it was very bad and almost no car reviewer talked about it).
I still think that, in real world example of flooring from a stop light, the Mazda3 2.5l turbo with AWD will get you faster to legal speed than the GTI can (I pretty much had to do this daily while entering the interstate from a red light).

 

Yes. I do not understand why, in the video above,(Throttle House) they chose to compare the 3 to the R, when the price of GTI falls right in line with Mazda. So long as we are crowing about predictions, I predicted this would happen, just because both are AWD.

I want to see a head up vs GTI, that's the competitor.

 

I want to see a head up vs GTI, that's the competitor.

CarAndDriver data:

Mazda3 2.5l turbo:

• 60 mph: 5.6 sec
• 100 mph: 14.3 sec
• 130 mph: 28.5 sec
• Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.4 sec
• Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.1 sec
• Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.0 sec
• 1/4 mile: 14.1 sec @ 99 mph
• Top speed (governor limited): 134 mph
• Braking, 70–0 mph: 169 ft
• Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 g

Mazda3 2.5l NA:

• Zero to 60 mph: 7.2 sec
• Zero to 100 mph: 19.6 sec
• Zero to 120 mph: 32.1 sec
• Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.7 sec
• Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 sec
• Top gear, 50–70 mph: 5.1 sec
• Standing ¼-mile: 15.6 sec @ 91 mph
• Top speed (governor limited): 131 mph
• Braking, 70–0 mph: 164 ft
• Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g

Mk7 GTI with performance pack and DSG (the one with VAQ):

• Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
• Zero to 100 mph: 14.3 sec
• Zero to 120 mph: 21.7 sec
• Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.5 sec
• Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.9 sec
• Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.8 sec
• Standing ¼-mile: 14.3 sec @ 100 mph
• Top speed (governor limited): 126 mph
• Braking, 70-0 mph: 159 ft
• Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.91 g

 

The best review you’re going to get on the new Mazda 3 turbo will be from Savagegeese or MotomanTV.

The drag race Throttle House did with the Mazda 3 turbo showed results I didn’t really expect. The Mazda did well.

I’m not sure how many times it has to be iterated to some of these car reviewers like Alex On Autos; Mazda made it clear that this isn’t a Mazdaspeed 3. Does Mazda need to send these guys a press car with vinyl wrapping all over the car that says “not a Mazdaspeed 3?” I think these reviewers that keep making this connection are damaging the perception of the vehicle as people might perceive the mazda 3 turbo as underperforming or not meeting an unintended expectation

 

0-60 in 5.75 sec in darn impressive for a non mazdaspeed. Its finally a competition for Mercedes A class and Audi A3, even a gti. I was never a fan of the suspension and the economy car performance of the 2019 version. This turbo now makes the 3 a serious conversation starter.

 

I find the acceleration of my 2017 3 pretty good. In my teens and 20's, I drove like a bat out of hell, but now having hit 40, I drive like an old man about 95% of the time, and then the other 5%, I drive like a demon. I'm worried about driving the new Turbo though because that rush of torque can be addictive. I recently drove a Tesla Model 3 and the torque in that car was just insane.

 

Yeah, I love my 2.5 swapped Gen 1 Mazda 3 S GT Hatch with it’s stock pop-up GPS screen and all but a Tesla Model 3 is faster than any car in that class should be. At least if the Tesla had a big ‘ol wing and active aero bits all around, if you didn’t know what it was, at least you might consider getting out of it’s way as you pull out of the McDonald’s parking lot. I mean, who needs a roller coaster as a daily driver?!