yes but i believe the OP was looking for an AFTERMARKET solution. so i was givng him/her an alrternative to look for:

you stalking me snap-on

 

I have no idea what you are talking about..

 

Dead On. The MZR and Axela platform was developed by Mazda, who then shared the design with Ford through the Mazda/Ford capital alliance that they've had since 1979. Ford released the European Focus and others based on this engine platform which Mazda developed. The same is true for the R&D on the 3.0L V6 and the Atenza.

 

werd...thats why I call it a "mazda" platform.

 

heres a link to HKS turbo http://www.sportcompactonly.com/prod...02054&c=43&l=2

 

those are just turbos not kits.

 

I wonder how much boost can be run dependably without direct injection. The Mazdaspeed6 runs 16psi with no pre-ignition issues.
With direct injection you can reduce the amount of crank degrees with fuel in the cylinder from 180 to less than 15. The way I see it..if you have no fuel in the chamber there is little chance of ignition. The secondary fuel pump on the 2.3 can produce over 1700psi to overcome compression in the chamber.

 

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...er=upcomingMS3

Press release came today

 

You're making my pants tight dude....stop it!

 

I'm driving a speed6 now. If the 3 can somehow get 240-250 with only front wheel drive it can be a hit.

I did notice in the "2006 Full Line" there are a few models on the chopping block. I.E. MPV/Tribute/6 wagon

 

thank God.... tribute is a huge mistake IMO....it looks like budget ford crap and people don't want to be reminded about the sharing between the two.

The CX7 WOULD'VE been the coolest suv on the planet if they had made it 300/300 instead of some crappy 220hp disi engine....Why not just the V6? It's cheaper and makes just as much power and gets much better mileage.

 

cx-7 has 244. do you understand the size of the CX-7? what would be the point of 300? the 2.3 l disi is not "crappy" - its a damn fine engine and a giant step forward for Mazda.

 

it's a horrible engine when it comes to fuel mileage and economy. It costs a lot more to priduce and gets worse mileage then the 3.0L V6. Also there is more stuff to go wrong and repairs will cost more. There is also more maintaince.

The 2.3 disi is a great PERFROMANCE engine....when it's used as a performance engine...but not when it's used as a mundane kiddie hauler. The CX7 had potential to dominate the SUV performance market and it didn't.

Hello toyota Rav4

 

Man, I keep disagreeing with you Roddimus. Second time since I join this forum. LOL!

I agree with Zoom44.

Rodiums, you do know that most domestic SUVs have V8s and they aren't dominating the SUV market. Its not just about how big the engine you put in, its about how well balance the car/SUV can be. I think Mazda's be great at balancing two things together, power and handling.

 

It's ok to disagree with me. I'm pretty opinionated. Here's the problem though....I'm right.


The 2.3 DISI engine is a PERFORMANCE engine. It is not economical. It is not cheap to produce. It will be more prone to problems/service. These are facts. The CX7 is a somewhat portly crossover SUV. It has the choice to go one of two ways...

1. Badass Sport Ute with 300awhp, 6spd manual and handling to put the Porsche Cayenne S to shame.

2. Soccer mom wagon with LESS horsepower and MORE weight. Couple that with (imo) poor gas milage.


Guess which one Mazda chose to go with? If there is a MS CX7 I'm sure it will be #1 but sadly thats not what they showed off. If you think I'm just ******* mazda or this car you're wrong. I'm a huge mazda fan. I've owned more mazdas than anyone I know. I've also owned more performance cars than anyone else I know. I've worked as a technician for several years. I'm a manager of an auto parts store and I design and build my own F.I. systems. I have a pretty good idea of whats going on in the automotive community.


I think the CX7 will be a great looking car and it'll be very similar to the Nissan Murano only it won't sell as well.