I wanted to share this article because it highlights how much the Ford Engineers were able to accomplish with the new Mustang engines. Mazda Engineers tried throwing on turbocharged, direct injection, and six speed tranny. They got 263 hp but only 25mpg out of 2.5L.

My point is this shows that simply throwing on direct injection and turbo does not make a better engine. So to all of those people out there thinking the V8's days are numbered, I present the Mazdaspeed 3.


http://www.freep.com/article/2010061...ed-overdoes-it

 

I thought the MS3 was only a 2.3L GTDI... Either way, that is not that impressive for a "performance" car. Ford has taken that same approach and just called it Ecoboost. Ecoboost engines seem to have a better setup because the same power increase is seen, you get better gas mileage, and it will run on 87 octane. I cannot wait until the 2.0L Ecoboost comes out. It is supposed to be putting out about that same power level as the MS3 but with much better fuel economy.

 

It's always fun when you have an engine that smokes the other guy in power, then when he plays the fuel efficiency card you can say "Nope."

 

Ford's Ecoboost engines are tuned for efficiency. Mazda's Mazdaspeed engines are tuned for performance.

 

That is still a good output for a four cylinder. Fuel economy isn't anything to write home about, though.

 

For a four-cyl, but they're really better suited to making efficiency rather than trying to cram it into the performance mold. I mean the V6 Mustang is all around better without the added bling, but maybe there's a cost component in there.

 

Can they deliver them on time?

 

Maybe, but you know my dad always told me that a high performance car is like a fine woman. I reckon it just takes her a while to get her make up on.

 

thats an old engine based on the 2.3 in the 2003 focus.... ewwww

 

Let me enlighten some of you on the MZR DISI motor. First off, it's pig rich from the factory, so throwing a tune on there can easily get you your gas mileage in the high 20s if you want it. I've taken long trips in mine and averaged 28-29mpg while cruising at 90mph, so it's not unheard of. Mind you, I'm also running in a Speed6, which is 400 lbs heavier and AWD. Typical mixed economy is around 22 mpg.

The motor is a beast, but they also failed to put any sort of economy feature in it. The car in 6th at a cruise is revving at around 2800 rpm.

Also, it doesn't share much other than basic block design with the 2.3 that was used in the Mazda3 from 04-09. Everything else is changed in the motor, including internals. It's not quite the same as an Ecoboost motor, but the tech involved is similar.

Last, this motor isn't without it's share of problems. Tuned motors bend/break rods easily, the stock turbo has some of the worst tolerances you'll ever see, causing oil to creep into the exhaust and smoke at idle, and the PCV system was poorly designed, causing poor drainback in the turbo. Mazda is still working to correct these issues in the 06-09 vehicles, and there's no guarantee that the 2010+ Speed3's have been fixed either.

 

Steve, I was beginning to wondering where you were on this one...

 

Just found it this morning and threw my input in on it.

Part of the reason I'm dumping the Speed6 (MS6) for the GT is the gas mileage. I can get 25-26 highway and have 100+ hp on demand? Sign me up. Not to mention the lack of any sort of vehicle integration for an iPod or phone in the MS6.

I've got several friends who have Speed3s, and they're nice, but at the time, were smaller and a bit rougher than the MS6 was. Also, the torque steer and boy racer looks weren't what I wanted (I was coming from a Mazdaspeed Protege into a Speed3/Speed6). You really can't compare them to anything that the 2011 Mustang has. Actually, one of the Mazda guys I know is seriously considering a '10 GT/ '11 V6 right now as his next car, and I'm encouraging him to do it.