Our "own" car reviews

[NooDle]

A truly excellent review. I want a Hilux now because it's the best. And so am I

 

[Polkky]

I drove the new Mazda 3 yesterday. I didn't take any photos of the thing, but it was identical to this (photo from netcarshow.com):

It had the Luxury package+navigation, so all the bells and whistles were there. OK, almost all of them: would have wanted a sunroof

When starting, the HUD display popped up from the dash. Yep, it isn't reflected to the window but to a separate plastic on top of the dash. This was a nice feature except for the fact that it was completely useless. The screen was angled so that I saw the digits if I kept my eye level just right above the steering wheel - when sitting normally there was just a plastic plate standing on the dash.

Everything else worked perfectly: all controls were close at hand, the seats were comfortably tight, a nice driving position was easy to find and even the tire roar was quite nonexistent. The navigation-entertainment-communication system was easy to use through the touch screen/joystick, but the menu tree was quite deep. You had to click all sorts of things to get the radio station changed. There must be some preset system, I just didn't look into it that well.

The car I drove had the 2.0 petrol engine. Like the one in my Honda, it really needed revs to get going: when cruising at highway speeds on 6th gear and flooring it, absolutely nothing happened. Nothing. Getting the revs to a more entertaining level, say above 3000rpm, made the engine whistle in a funny way and then the car accelerated dynamically. It wasn't fast even then. When trying to drive quickly through a road segment with uphills and downhills, the engine just wasn't on the same level with the excellent chassis. I mentioned this to the salesman and he said that he has noticed the same thing. He did mention that it does rev until ~8000rpm but they're also offering a 2.2 litre doubleturbodiesel with 380Nm of torque (the 2.0 petrol has 210Nm.) That would be more of my car, except that it's still FWD...

 

[Perc]

The car I drove had the 2.0 petrol engine. Like the one in my Honda, it really needed revs to get going: when cruising at highway speeds on 6th gear and flooring it, absolutely nothing happened. Nothing. Getting the revs to a more entertaining level, say above 3000rpm, made the engine whistle in a funny way and then the car accelerated dynamically. It wasn't fast even then. When trying to drive quickly through a road segment with uphills and downhills, the engine just wasn't on the same level with the excellent chassis. I mentioned this to the salesman and he said that he has noticed the same thing. He did mention that it does rev until ~8000rpm but they're also offering a 2.2 litre doubleturbodiesel with 380Nm of torque (the 2.0 petrol has 210Nm.) That would be more of my car, except that it's still FWD...

It's strange that the Japanese haven't gotten on the downsizing/turbocharging train with everyone else. A 2.0-liter with 120hp in a brand new car, wtf? Europeans get that from a 1.2 these days, and with the low-end torque you mentioned too. My turbocharged sewing machine picks up speed effortlessly on the freeway, even with a fully loaded car. It's still only 122hp which is noticeable when you're overtaking, but the torque curve is nice.

The 3's drivetrain options are a bit lacking at this point, I have to say. 1.5 101hp, 2.0 120hp and a 150hp 2.2 diesel. The range is at the very least missing a ~1.6 diesel with 110hp. And the 1.5 is probably anemic.

 

[AiR]

Mazda have rejected downsizing, they say their high compression larger displacement naturally aspirated engines are more fuel efficient in the real world than small overboosted engines. Given how easy it is to optimize drivetrains to do well in the the NEDC cycle and how little the same applies to real world conditions I think they may be right.

 

[NecroJoe]

In the US, it comes with a 2.0 with 155hp & 150 LB/ft (6800 redline) or a 2.5 with 185hp and 184 LB/ft (6500 redline). You can only get the manual with the 2.0, but the 2.5s auto does have the "manual shift option and sport function".

 

[narf]

Mazda have rejected downsizing, they say their high compression larger displacement naturally aspirated engines are more fuel efficient in the real world than small overboosted engines. Given how easy it is to optimize drivetrains to do well in the the NEDC cycle and how little the same applies to real world conditions I think they may be right.

Comparing the Mazda3's 120hp 2.0 with the Golf's 122-125hp 1.4 on spritmonitor.de yields virtually the same average, 6.57 vs 6.51.

 

[rickhamilton620]

Comparing the Mazda3's 120hp 2.0 with the Golf's 122-125hp 1.4 on spritmonitor.de yields virtually the same average, 6.57 vs 6.51.

I'd gladly take the (in theory) simpler NA drive train over the turbo if I had to choose. Less likely to go wrong.

 

[Spectre]

Our "own" car reviews

In the US, it comes with a 2.0 with 155hp & 150 LB/ft (6800 redline) or a 2.5 with 185hp and 184 LB/ft (6500 redline). You can only get the manual with the 2.0, but the 2.5s auto does have the "manual shift option and sport function".

Consider also that the US and Japan have some pretty strict long term emissions laws (must maintain new car emissions for 8-10 years or 80-100k miles now) and that small turbo motors have issues with that, and you may have a better picture of why the Japanese makers haven't jumped on the bandwagon.

 

[Lastsoul]

It's strange that the Japanese haven't gotten on the downsizing/turbocharging train with everyone else. A 2.0-liter with 120hp in a brand new car, wtf? Europeans get that from a 1.2 these days, and with the low-end torque you mentioned too. My turbocharged sewing machine picks up speed effortlessly on the freeway, even with a fully loaded car. It's still only 122hp which is noticeable when you're overtaking, but the torque curve is nice.

The 3's drivetrain options are a bit lacking at this point, I have to say. 1.5 101hp, 2.0 120hp and a 150hp 2.2 diesel. The range is at the very least missing a ~1.6 diesel with 110hp. And the 1.5 is probably anemic.

I talked to some Mazda guys and they said the 120bhp 2.0 is there only to provide the torque of the 2.0, but with the economy of a normal 1.6. It's only 700 euros or so more in Finland compared to the 1.5 making t pretty obvious choice. What I don't get is why they're not offering the 165 hp version of the same engine? It probably wouldn't even consume any more fuel.

 

[narf]

I talked to some Mazda guys and they said the 120bhp 2.0 is there only to provide the torque of the 2.0, but with the economy of a normal 1.6. It's only 700 euros or so more in Finland compared to the 1.5 making t pretty obvious choice. What I don't get is why they're not offering the 165 hp version of the same engine? It probably wouldn't even consume any more fuel.

The NEFZ claims +14%, the real world suggests +11%.

What I find intriguing is that up to about 4000rpm the two versions of the 2.0 should drive the same, identical torque up to there... which explains the small difference from 0-100 of only 0.7s, considering it advertises 45hp more.

 

[Lastsoul]

I would guess they're totally same engine. Only software mapping differs like in some old Volvos and Minis. Basically the breathing of the 120 hp version is limited by closing the throttle after 4000 rpm.

 

[Perc]

I'd gladly take the (in theory) simpler NA drive train over the turbo if I had to choose. Less likely to go wrong.

I would guess that something like 70% of cars sold in Europe these days has a turbo (or two) in it. You don't see those breaking down all over the place. Not to mention every bus, every truck and so forth over the last 30 years.

Comparing the Mazda3's 120hp 2.0 with the Golf's 122-125hp 1.4 on spritmonitor.de yields virtually the same average, 6.57 vs 6.51.

And the Golf's 1.4 gets you a way nicer torque curve. Altough I might be biased.

 

[rickhamilton620]

I would guess that something like 70% of cars sold in Europe these days has a turbo (or two) in it. You don't see those breaking down all over the place. Not to mention every bus, every truck and so forth over the last 30 years.

That's a good point, especially for the truck/bus engines.

If I was purely pragmatic and wanted to drive a new car for the next 10 to 15 years though...I wouldn't fault someone for going NA. I wouldn't mind driving a new Golf with the turbo...heard nothing but good things.


Edit: I also wouldn't mind a turbodiesel powered school bus but that's a dream for another day/forum. :lol:

 

[93Flareside]

Used buses aren't expensive.

 

[Spectre]

I would guess that something like 70% of cars sold in Europe these days has a turbo (or two) in it. You don't see those breaking down all over the place. Not to mention every bus, every truck and so forth over the last 30 years.

Different operating environments for the US and Japan, too. Small turbos have historically not fared well here.

Big turbos on big engines are another matter entirely. Usually they're set to have rather low boost, as opposed to the higher boost of a tiny engine with a turbo. Lower boost = longer life. Also, diesels with turbos are emphatically different in terms of long-term turbo life and emissions - the turbo on my diesel truck is rated to last 250+K, the same turbo in a gas engine application is only rated to 100K.

And the Golf's 1.4 gets you a way nicer torque curve. Altough I might be biased.

Golf 1.4 TSI vs Focus 2.0NA (very similar engine to the Mazda): http://www.carmag.co.za/road-tests/...w-golf-1-4-tsi-highline-vs-ford-focus-2-0-si/

Golf:

Ford:

Like how the VW engine just falls over after 4500, there's another 2000rpm there that's basically useless. Also, I'm going to predict that the *very* computer controlled twin charging system is probably going to commit suicide (in many markets) when it starts getting older.

 

[Perc]

Like how the VW engine just falls over after 4500, there's another 2000rpm there that's basically useless.

I can't say I agree with you. And unlike you I don't base my opinion on random Google results, because I've put 20500km on that exact engine over the last year and a half.

While it does run out of puff a bit when you wind it out, it's nowhere near as bad as an equivalent diesel engine would be. If you like your revs, a TSI might not be for you though. You'd be better off with a vtec Honda or something.

 

[NooDle]

true but I guess people will prefer the higher torque at much lower revs
who beside myself revs to 6.5k revs daily?

 

[narf]

Golf 1.4 TSI vs Focus 2.0NA (very similar engine to the Mazda): http://www.carmag.co.za/road-tests/...w-golf-1-4-tsi-highline-vs-ford-focus-2-0-si/

PERFORMANCE VW Golf 18/20 Ford Focus 16/20
FUEL ECONOMY VW Golf 18/20 Ford Focus 16/20

Seems about right

Golf:

Ford:

Like how the VW engine just falls over after 4500, there's another 2000rpm there that's basically useless.

Golf: "We recorded a best zero to 100 km/h time of 8,54 seconds"
"the Ford managed a best time of 10,05 seconds"

So... it's 9% down on peak power, but 1.5 seconds slower to 100? Yup, that's the low-down torque in the TSI working its magic physics.
You say it falls over after 4500rpm, I say it outperforms below 4500rpm and returns to regular after 4500rpm. In the real world you rarely go above 4500rpm anyway

Also, I'm going to predict that the *very* computer controlled twin charging system is probably going to commit suicide (in many markets) when it starts getting older.

Note, when Perc and I are talking about 1.4 TSI we aren't talking about the twincharged 1.4 TSI but rather the turbocharged 1.4 TSI, particularly the 90kW one we both have in our Octavias.

- - - Updated - - -

who beside myself revs to 6.5k revs daily?

If I do that daily in low gears I need new rubber every few weeks, and in high gears I'd need a new license soon... no Autobahn on my daily commute

 

[Leadfoot866]

who beside myself revs to 6.5k revs daily?

*slooooowly raises hand*


...yeah, I can be a pretty aggressive sometimes.

 

[Spectre]

I can't say I agree with you. And unlike you I don't base my opinion on random Google results, because I've put 20500km on that exact engine over the last year and a half.

While it does run out of puff a bit when you wind it out, it's nowhere near as bad as an equivalent diesel engine would be. If you like your revs, a TSI might not be for you though. You'd be better off with a vtec Honda or something.

It all depends on individual driving style. I prefer versatile engines with a lot of low and midrange torque, but where the power doesn't just drop off a cliff with over a third of the useful rev range to go. Something like, say, this non-VTEC Honda:

- - - Updated - - -

true but I guess people will prefer the higher torque at much lower revs
who beside myself revs to 6.5k revs daily?

Me.