Log in

View Full Version : Mazda Speed 3 Dyno Results


JuanDirtyMessican
10-13-2017, 10:12 AM
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/0610_gti_civic_mazdaspeed3_dyno/index.html


Mazdaspeed 3

Journalists aren't exempt from the same childish giggle-fits that afflict regular car enthusiasts. All it takes is a loads of power (preferably enough to overwhelm the tires on command) and even the most jaded journalist will crack a smile. We think the normally aspirated Mazda 3 is a fantastic small car, so we just knew that the turbocharged Mazdaspeed 3 would be a guaranteed giggle.



The Mazdaspeed 3's engine puts out big peak numbers, and as expected, we loved its acceleration. Many of us noticed, though, that the turbocharged 2.3-liter sometimes felt like an on-off switch. At some speeds, it made amazing power. At others, it didn't. The dyno chart shows that we weren't imagining things.

Turbos, by nature, have reduced operating ranges, but the Mazdaspeed 3 seems to be particularly susceptible to that limitation. It has prodigious torque in the midrange, but the engine feels anemic below 3000 rpm or above 5500. Honda's normally aspirated Si makes at least 85% of its maximum torque from 2000 to its redline. That means that if you floor the Honda's loud pedal anywhere between two and eight grand, you'll have at your disposal at least 85% of the maximum quoted torque. VW's turbo GTI will hand over at least 70% of its peak number at any time from two grand to its own redline. The Mazda is far behind the others at 20%.

Of course, the 'Speed 3 makes a much higher peak torque number than either the VW or the Honda (in fact, its peak is almost twice what the Honda puts out). But the GTI's engine, which is 0.3 liter smaller than the Mazda's, actually makes more torque than the Mazda from idle to 2700rpm--and again from 5800rpm to redline. The result is that the VW responds to gas pedal inputs with proportional urgency while the Mazda is sometimes fantastically fast, and sometimes--quite surprisingly--not.

A dual-scroll turbocharger like the one in the Saturn Sky Red Line and Pontiac Solstice GXP would help the Mazdaspeed 3 in increasing its usable rev range. As you can see in the comparison graph between the 3 and the Sky Red Line, peak numbers are similar, but the shapes of the torque curves tell two very different stories. GM's dual-scroll turbo builds boost much earlier, and has almost reached its torque peak by 2000 rpm. At that speed, the Saturn's 2.0-liter generates 210 lb-ft, compared to the larger Mazda engine's 128. Torque is similar throughout the midrange once the Mazda finally wakes up at 3000. By 6000, Mazda's engine is running out of breath, putting out 138 lb-ft while the smaller GM engine still manages 168.

Punch the accelerator at 3000 rpm in a Mazdaspeed 3 and you'll probably smile, too. But if you compare it to the more sophisticated engines of the other cars here, you may find it lacking the linearity and broad-range power delivery that set apart the merely powerful engines from the truly magnificent.


http://www.automobilemag.com/features/0610_z+2017_mazdaspeed_3+dyno_chart.jpg

JuanDirtyMessican
10-13-2017, 10:19 AM
I'd swap the top mount for a front mount and get some damn MOTOR MOUNTS. That engine is loose as a fat ladies caboose!

blackbird
10-13-2017, 06:22 PM
I love when automotive journalists think they can outsmart the engineers or sound like they know what they're talking about. "Just drop in a dual-scroll turbo like the Solstice..."

The turbo is a pretty small Hitachi-Warner and could easily make more torque down low. I'd bet 90% of the curve is because of the calibration being the main cause (i.e. torque management). Then on the dyno the top mount intercooler isn't getting any of the airflow so you can bet that's reflecting in the power curve and that it would do much, much better out on the street or at the track.

I should dig around and try to find the exact specs of the turbo. It's a K04 but but I don't know the wheel or housing sizes. I have some pics somewhere that I took of the same assembly from the MS6 from one of the auto shows a couple years ago.

paintbaler1587
10-14-2017, 05:56 AM
why is the dyno pic shown of an Si?

blackbird
10-14-2017, 07:59 AM
Because he pasted the wrong picture link from the article. If you go the first link (http://www.automobilemag.com/features/0610_gti_civic_mazdaspeed3_dyno/index.html) in the post you can read the review and see the dyno chart of the Si, GTI, and MS3.

AJ Quick
10-14-2017, 09:34 AM
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/0610_z+2017_mazdaspeed_3+dyno_chart.jpg

JuanDirtyMessican
10-14-2017, 12:36 PM
why is the dyno pic shown of an Si?


FIXED!

KnightRider
10-14-2017, 01:54 PM
good race?

ENDY
10-19-2017, 07:53 PM
I love when automotive journalists think they can outsmart the engineers or sound like they know what they're talking about. "Just drop in a dual-scroll turbo like the Solstice..."

I caught that too!!!! :lol:

I like this one: "GM's dual-scroll turbo builds boost much earlier..." :ftard:

I'm actually quite disapointed with this test. Mazda has been saying this new car is the most powerful front wheel drive production car in history. I've read it was supposed to have 265hp from the factory. Yet, when I look at those dyno sheets............... Not good. Something is amiss. Either Mazda over estimated/hyped the power of the Mazdaspeed3, or else there was something wrong with the test car/dyno/test. Something.......

Dave Coleman has alot to explain here! :lol:

lunchbox660
10-19-2017, 10:23 PM
this car sounds remarkably similar to a bone stock SRT4...i think a stock for stock race would be a very close race. also i agree with blackbird about the torque management. i would be willing to bet alot that the car is CAPABLE of making PLENTY more torque way down low, just like an SRT4 with an aftermarket WGA, all you gotta do is defeat the factory boost control and inplement your own torque "management" lol....the SRT4 was the same way almost....boost would come on relatively slow. it still made decent torque, but nothing compared to what it made at full boost, and then when you add an AGP WGA or other similar product, you move that torque band WAY lower....i cant wait to see one of these on the road!

blackbird
10-20-2017, 03:46 AM
It's good to always be suspicious of any dyno that any car mag does (that also applies to anyone else posting on an internet forum too). We don't know the test procedures, how many pulls, what gear, correction factors, etc. And even if you ignore the numbers I wouldn't necessarily think the curves are exactly representative of the real world. With modern engine management systems they can be pretty smart and perform very differently on a dyno compared to the real world. The MS3 is heavily torque managed (probably just like the upcoming Caliber SRT-4 will be) and that can have a big impact on the dyno.

Besides the intercooler not getting any air (and more than likely resulting in extremely high charge temps) we don't know what gear it was tested in. For an example, assuming it was a 3rd or 4th gear pull the PCM could was seen the car not moving (via a rear wheel ABS sensor), high charge temps, and so on and then lower boost or alter the boost delivery. And boost=torque, and torque is used to calculate horsepower.

I've seen a few of the magazine testing numbers from the track and I would guess it should perform very similar to the Neon SRT-4. Equal in some acceleration aspects and better in others. I can also point to many poor SRT-4 magazine numbers, so until there is a good base of real world numbers we won't really know. But besides raw acceleration, I personally think the MS3 is a much better, well rounded car on many other levels.

ENDY
10-20-2017, 12:00 PM
I'm still wondering why the power output is so low. Mazda has been saying the MS3 will produce 265hp. I know that dyno results are to be taken with a grain of salt, but being a front wheel drive, the power should have been higher if Mazda was correct in it's power claims.

If only it came in something other than a wagon.....

blackbird
10-20-2017, 12:34 PM
Some of the possible reasons for the "low" MS3 numbers have been already mentioned. But let's run the numbers and see what it's making at the crank according to that particular dyno. And you have to remember that all cars are rated at the crank by the manufacturer's.

Let's assume drivetrain loss between the engine and the wheels/ground is between 10-15% for most manual transaxle FWD cars. So with those numbers:

216 / .90=240
216 / .85=254

In this case the MS3 was more than likely putting down between 240 and almost 255 at the crank. And again we don't know how many pulls, the dyno correction factor, heat soak, etc. We also know that Dodge rated the SRT-4 a little on the low side. A lot of SRT-4 owners see the 215 hp ('03) or 230 hp ('04-05) ratings and then look at a dyno and wonder why a car rated as having supposedly more power like the MS3 doesn't show as much on the dyno.

For this example we'll say a bone stock SRT-4 puts down 225 hp on the dyno. That's about a decent average from what I have seen, with some putting down more and some less (not to mention that just like the cars themselves, no two dyno or dyno sessions will be the same). So if we calculate the crank numbers assuming drivetrain loss is between a similar 10 and 15% we get the following:

225 / .90=250
225 / .85=265

In reality if DCX would have rated the SRT-4 closer to what it's actually producing you can see it's a little higher than the 215 or 230 rating. But since dyno's can have a lot of variables and this is only one dyno for one MS3 we'll have to wait to see more. I would expect that in the end the actual power ratings under reasonably optimal real world conditions to favor the MS3, but it's too close to call. After factoring out weight the best comparison of power production will be once we can start comparing trap speeds.

ENDY
10-20-2017, 12:37 PM
The reasons for the "low" MS3 numbers have been already mentioned. But let's run the numbers and see what it's making at the crank according to that particular dyno. And you have to remember that all cars are rated at the crank by the manufacturer's.

Let's assume drivetrain loss between the engine and the wheels/ground is between 10-15% for most manual transaxle FWD cars. So with those numbers:

216 / .90=240
216 / .85=254

In this case the MS3 was more than likely putting down between 240 and almost 255 at the crank. And again we don't know how many pulls correction factor, heat soak, etc. We also know that Dodge rated the SRT-4 a little on the low side. A lot of SRT-4 owners see the 215 hp ('03) or 230 hp ('04-05) ratings and then look at a dyno and wonder why a car rated as having supposedly more power like the MS3 doesn't show as much on the dyno.

For this example we'll say a bone stock SRT-4 puts down 225 hp on the dyno. That's about a decent average from what I have seen, with some putting down more and some less (not to mention that just like the cars themselves, no two dyno or dyno sessions will be the same). So if we calculate the crank numbers assuming drivetrain loss is between a similar 10 and 15% we get the following:

225 / .90=250
225 / .85=265

In reality if DCX would have rated the SRT-4 closer to what it's actually producing you can see it's a little higher than the 215 or 230 rating. But since dyno's can have a lot of variables and this is only one dyno for one MS3 we'll have to wait to see more. I would expect that in the end the actual power ratings under reasonably optimal real world conditions to favor the MS3, but it's too close to call. After factoring out weight the best comparison of power production will be once we can start comparing trap speeds.

Makes alot of sence. Thanks.

|