Anyone know the 0-100/kmh or 0-60mph time of the Mazda3 in 148hp and 160hp? Can't seem to find this anywhere.

 

check out this link..

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

all your questions have been answered.


the #'s is on page 3

 

I personaly disagree with those spec considering it depends on where u live and on the driver. I made a pretty much stock 91 ls integra do 15.4 @ 87mph pass this car was said to do mid to low 16s.

i am sure i can do better then 16.0 in the 1/4 giving a few trys but anyway thats my opinion

 

That's interesting. The opposite is usually true with sportbikes. The magazines are way into the 10s with 600s, where mere mortals usually can't touch the 10s at all. Of course, they also "correct" for air density, but even so, they're always getting amazing numbers. Cycle World printed 0-60 in 2.3 seconds for the GSX-R600 a couple years ago.

To me, the quarter mile time sounds long for a 7.4 0-60 (or the 0-60 seems short for a 16.0 quarter). But that .87g really surprises me, since the MP3 only got .84g in Road & Track with lower profile SP Sport 9000 tires.

 

I'm curiois as to why Mazda chooses not to release this information. On the Canadian website it just says N/A for 0-100kmh acceleration. Hopefully it's not because they are embarassed...although I doubt if the specs are that bad.

 

According to Car and Driver (Jan '03), the 3 does 0-60 in 7.4 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 16 seconds flat.

 

I assume you mean the 160hp right?

 

also remeber, those C&D numbers are for the HATCH.
the sedan might be a bit faster, because its lighter

 

World oF Wheels tested 8.9sec to 100km/h for the mazda3 sport.

 

NO LOW END TORQUE! that sucks!

 

I assure you this car has ample power compared to others in its class. Even the 2.0

 

I would agree with the C&D quote for 0-60mph. My 01' ES does it in what... 8.9, 8.7? The 3 has ALOT more power with the 2.3L. Of course, it does weigh more. If anything C&D is usually conservative with their 0-60mph times; witness the SVT Focus, C&D's time for that car was always at least a half second slower than the other mags and even some guys on the Focaljet forum.

I'm interested in the comment "NO LOW END TORQUE". I haven't driven this car yet, but I also have not heard this complaint anywhere before--I've heard quite the contrary, actually. Do you own a 3? 2.0 or 2.3?

 

I have the 2.0, the sedan weights 160Lbs more than a new corolla which is a lot.

I don't find it slow at all, its an economy car...

 

what's the 0-60 for a 2.3 Sport with an automatic tranny?

 

like seriously guys, i think a 7.4 (as C&D states) is pretty respectable....

like if you were looking for 5s and 6s then you bought the wrong car.... really you want more of a sports car if you want faster times liek those...

This car IS an economy car, and a 7.4, with a 16 flat 1/4 is really nice....

plus from what i hear it is fast and feels fast and handles really nicely... just if you are dissapointed with the times it gets then i dunt knwo what to say, except that u shouldn't have been looking into an economy class car in the first place....

it has 160HP which is quite a bit, and should be enough for most.... add on a couple of mods I/H/E and u can get maybe another 15 - 20 whp which will translate to about hmmm 22- 28 flywheel hp...

so 188hp in this little car isn't bad at all, on top of that someone will probably develop a turbo kit sometime in the future.... and then we will see what these engines can do....

but for stock, as a stock car, those times are pretty nice