[Had4mazdas@]

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.

Sure enough, but the 2nd video in that first post shows first shift at 53 to 54 hundred RPM and as you would expect, time improves quite a bit. . Using 93vs 91 octane too, though I do not know how much difference that can make. The fast guy was NOT using paddle shifters. !st guy?

 

[daniellee003]

Sure enough, but the 2nd video in that first post shows first shift at 53 to 54 hundred RPM and as you would expect, time improves quite a bit. . Using 93vs 91 octane too, though I do not know how much difference that can make. The fast guy was NOT using paddle shifters. !st guy?

I wonder if the difference in the Turbo 0-60s is mainly due to octane differences (1st video was no brake-boost and low-octane, my run of 6.5s was low-octane but w/ brake-boost).
If you look at the power curves, 93 octane has a significant HP and torque advantage after 4000-4500 RPM.
In the 2nd (faster) video, I think it could be the PCM recognizing the higher-octane and automatically raising the upshift RPM to maximize power output.

 

[Dar_T]

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'm assuming you've paid of your 2019? Curious on what the out of pocket cost will be. Been considering trading in the 2020. I tried mazda canada's trade up value website and it gave me 23k which is almost 9k less than I paid for last November.

 

[daniellee003]

I'm assuming you've paid of your 2019? Curious on what the out of pocket cost will be. Been considering trading in the 2020. I tried mazda canada's trade up value website and it gave me 23k which is almost 9k less than I paid for last November.

My 2019 is a CPO which I financed in March 2020 for ~$20,100, so I am dealing with a smaller loss (USD).
I am "underwater" on the loan by $2000 (= amount owed - car's appraisal value), but that's a hit I'm willing to take because my warranty is expiring soon. (My 2019 has had so many issues I've HEAVILY relied on warranty coverage). And frankly, I'm SICK of having to go to the dealer 4 times in a month.

I've already spent hours going between 2 dealers and making them compete for my business. I'll update with an OTD price once I shake on it.
But it looks like my monthly payment will rise by ~$100 (mostly from Preferred Plus -> Premium Plus & FWD -> AWD).

 

[Had4mazdas@]

I wonder if the difference in the Turbo 0-60s is mainly due to octane differences (1st video was no brake-boost and low-octane, my run of 6.5s was low-octane but w/ brake-boost).
If you look at the power curves, 93 octane has a significant HP and torque advantage after 4000-4500 RPM.
In the 2nd (faster) video, I think it could be the PCM recognizing the higher-octane and automatically raising the upshift RPM to maximize power output.
View attachment 279309

Yes, 93 vs 87 octane gives you an additional 23 hp and 10 ft lbs. But what about 91? You would think if there is a linear relationship (probably not, there is always a point of diminishing returns) between octane and hp and you get 23 hp from a 6pt jump in octane you could deduce you would get 4/6ths or 2/3s of that 23 hp going from 87 to 91, 15.41 so 242 total hp on 91.
I admit it, just conjecture, but any better way to guess? It would be good if we could see a power curve for 91 octane. That is what I would likely use most of the time anyway because most fueling stations in this area do not carry 93.

 

[Dar_T]

My 2019 is a CPO which I financed in March 2020 for ~$20,100, so I am dealing with a smaller loss (USD).
I am "underwater" on the loan by $2000 (= amount owed - car's appraisal value), but that's a hit I'm willing to take because my warranty is expiring soon. (My 2019 has had so many issues I've HEAVILY relied on warranty coverage). And frankly, I'm SICK of having to go to the dealer 4 times in a month.

I've already spent hours going between 2 dealers and making them compete for my business. I'll update with an OTD price once I shake on it.
But it looks like my monthly payment will rise by ~$100 (mostly from Preferred Plus -> Premium Plus & FWD -> AWD).

2k under is pretty acceptable. Anything over 5k just doesn't makes sense imo. Awesome! I've never tried a 0-100 before but found myself on an empty piece of road. I got on my 2.5 NA at 8sec, with just sports mode and foot to the floor (did have steelies and winter tires and passenger/dog).

 

[daniellee003]

Yes, 93 vs 87 octane gives you an additional 23 hp and 10 ft lbs. But what about 91? You would think if there is a linear relationship (probably not, there is always a point of diminishing returns) between octane and hp and you get 23 hp from a 6pt jump in octane you could deduce you would get 4/6ths or 2/3s of that 23 hp going from 87 to 91, 15.41 so 242 total hp on 91.
I admit it, just conjecture, but any better way to guess? It would be good if we could see a power curve for 91 octane. That is what I would likely use most of the time anyway because most fueling stations in this area do not carry 93.

Hmm, I thought 93-octane was pretty accessible throughout the US.
I think it could also be the case that the engine has 2 profiles, one designed for 87 and one for 93. And if it doesn't detect 93 or above, it will default to the 87 profile.
This is also, like you said, conjecture.

 

[Tric]

Hmm, I thought 93-octane was pretty accessible throughout the US.
I think it could also be the case that the engine has 2 profiles, one designed for 87 and one for 93. And if it doesn't detect 93 or above, it will default to the 87 profile.
This is also, like you said, conjecture.

Its not just an on off switch computer is always trying to advance based on knock and other conditions.. temperature has a huge offect on octane... at an outside temperature 30c might give you less 225hp but at 0c would be closer to the 250hp.

Examples... If its below 10c 91 octane will behave like 93 at 30c temperature has huge effects..

 

[OGD888]

Its not just an on off switch computer is always checking advance.. has more to do with temperature... 87 octane at an outside temperature 30c might give you less 225hp but at 0c would be closer to the 250hp.

Examples... If its below 10c 91 octane will behave like 93 at 30c temperature has huge effects..

My conjecture is more in-line with yours. Me think the computer constantly test the advance angle and adjust it to just beneath the detonation point, realizing the best performance given the existing factors.

 

[Shawn Beisel]

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.

 

[Had4mazdas@]

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

 

[Shawn Beisel]

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.

 

[Monteko]

“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.

 

[Dar_T]

“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.

 

[Had4mazdas@]

“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.

C&D often posts the fastest times around which makes their methods suspect. More often times published for the CX-5 turbo are around 6.5 to 6.6
Press embargo ends 4pm 11/20. Soon we will see enough times published to get a pattern. Based on weight difference I expect about .4 to .5 advantage for the 3.

Fearless predictions: Car and driver will get a 5.7 or 5.8.
Most times will cluster 6 to 6.5

Too bad 0-60 has emerged as a primary means for measuring comparative acceleration.
Quarter mile trap speeds (not times) will be more consistent because not so dependent on gearing, traction and technique.
Problem is, with a lot cars able reach 100mph in that distance, track access is needed, not practical for many testers.

 

[johnbuffum]

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: Had4mazdas@ posted a 0-60 tracked clip with a time of 5.75 seconds.

Significantly faster than the NA. It beats a Mercedes CLA.

 

[johnbuffum]

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

 

[DPAcpa]

C&D often posts the fastest times around which makes their methods suspect. More often times published for the CX-5 turbo are around 6.5 to 6.6
Press embargo ends 4pm 11/20. Soon we will see enough times published to get a pattern. Based on weight difference I expect about .4 to .5 advantage for the 3.

Fearless predictions: Car and driver will get a 5.7 or 5.8.
Most times will cluster 6 to 6.5

Too bad 0-60 has emerged as a primary means for measuring comparative acceleration.
Quarter mile trap speeds (not times) will be more consistent because not so dependent on gearing, traction and technique.
Problem is, with a lot cars able reach 100mph in that distance, track access is needed, not practical for many testers.

I like 0-60. My primary goals in driving are to get on the highway before the guy behind me and similar real world daily goals. How fast you are going at the end of the on ramp is also important.

 

[Had4mazdas@]

I like 0-60. My primary goals in driving are to get on the highway before the guy behind me and similar real world daily goals. How fast you are going at the end of the on ramp is also important.

Sounds ligit to me. I like something that stretches legs above 60 for merging and passing. Differences between a high powered car and not are magnified at higher speeds. !/4 mile reflects this better.

 

[Gretsch]

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....