The end of the MazdaSpeed3 as we know it...

[Topweasel]

They're all just ways to up the compression ratio of the engine (effectively) which increases efficiency.

Agreed. Just saying that the general consensus among manufacturers has been a move to Turbo's specially on the mid size, mid range cars to maintain performance but to keep weight, emissions, and fuel usage down. So it would seem strange for a company like Mazda to avoid turbos, specially in the case of a car that they had already been using one on.

 

[JCH13]

Agreed. Just saying that the general consensus among manufacturers has been a move to Turbo's specially on the mid size, mid range cars to maintain performance but to keep weight, emissions, and fuel usage down. So it would seem strange for a company like Mazda to avoid turbos, specially in the case of a car that they had already been using one on.

Mazda made a decision to go simpler and lighter. While many cars are gaining weight and complexity with every generation or revision, Mazda is shedding weight with the latest MZ6 and MZ3. Forgoing the turbo saves weight in many different ways, which is then compounded throughout the engine and vehicle. The reduced weight helps to make up for the lack of power and improves the handling and feel of the vehicle. It also helps to reduce price and energy required to manufacture and ship a vehicle. They are definitely embracing the KISS principle.

It strikes me like what was happening in the early 1990's. Japanese sports cars were generally getting heavier and more complicated with more and more power and features... and then Mazda comes up with the Miata, a total game changer. Hopefully they are reading the tea leaves properly this time too.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't see how it was such an amazing car. Gas mileage sucked so you might as well get an AWD or RWD car that's just as fast, more fun, and the same cost.

 

[Hugo L.]

I once raced one in my E36 M3. He was on my ass the whole time and was likely playing with me, while I was maxed out. Great little car.

 

[exar333]

He is saying no one meaning everybody but Mazda and that should be fairly obvious from his post. Why is Mazda dumping turbo engines, specially the enthusiast ones, when just about everyone else is moving to FI across almost their whole lines?

Mazda has been pretty clear that they want small, light engines built for efficiency. Instead of going turbo or hybrid, they are getting similar MPGs thru their standard F/I engines and also focusing on overall light chassis.

I don't think any specific method is 100% right, but this is definitely not a move on the enthusiast front for the MS3 specifically, if true.

 

[JCH13]

I don't see how it was such an amazing car. Gas mileage sucked so you might as well get an AWD or RWD car that's just as fast, more fun, and the same cost.

All of what you said is wrong.

I get 29-33mpg highway with my MS3, and generally 25-28mpg with mixed driving. Everyone I know with a WRX or other turbocharged AWD car is in the 20-25mpg range. Fuelly shows the MS3 average around 25mpg and the WRX average around 22mpg.

The MS3 starts about $2k (9%) less than a WRX with a better feature set.

Better fuel economy, lower price, better feature set. The only drawback as an enthusiast is the FWD, and even that doesn't matter a vast majority of the time.

 

[xSkyDrAx]

All of what you said is wrong.

I get 29-33mpg highway with my MS3, and generally 25-28mpg with mixed driving. Everyone I know with a WRX or other turbocharged AWD car is in the 20-25mpg range. Fuelly shows the MS3 average around 25mpg and the WRX average around 22mpg.

The MS3 starts about $2k (9%) less than a WRX with a better feature set.

Better fuel economy, lower price, better feature set. The only drawback as an enthusiast is the FWD, and even that doesn't matter a vast majority of the time.

This. When I was shopping for a WRX they were barely budging from their MSRP price and with everything said and done (TTL) a base WRX was going for 28k-ish.

Compared to the speed3 they gave it to me OTD for less than 25k. It may not seem like a huge difference in cost but at that price range 3k is still something to consider especially when the Mazda was much better equipped than the WRX and had tighter handling/more power/similar MPG.

I still believe that most people will not be able to get (in real negotiating situation) an Si, GTI, WRX, ST for less than a Speed3.

The other RWD coupes in this price range wont have the practicality of the hatch so it's hard to compare.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

HALO type cars like the Speed3 are to drive buyers to the dealership - they can't afford a MS3 but they can afford a $18K Mazda 3, or a more practical family car like the 6 or CX5.

Sure it did not sell in great numbers but if it drive foot traffic to the dealership then it did its job.

 

[JCH13]

This. When I was shopping for a WRX they were barely budging from their MSRP price and with everything said and done (TTL) a base WRX was going for 28k-ish.

Compared to the speed3 they gave it to me OTD for less than 25k. It may not seem like a huge difference in cost but at that price range 3k is still something to consider especially when the Mazda was much better equipped than the WRX and had tighter handling/more power/similar MPG.

I still believe that most people will not be able to get (in real negotiating situation) an Si, GTI, WRX, ST for less than a Speed3.

The other RWD coupes in this price range wont have the practicality of the hatch so it's hard to compare.

Pretty much... I got a Grand Touring (everything but the nav system) MS3 for about $24k OTD. Similarly equipped WRX was almost $30k.

 

[stag3]

I don't see how it was such an amazing car. Gas mileage sucked so you might as well get an AWD or RWD car that's just as fast, more fun, and the same cost.

that's the thing tho, you weren't buying them @ msrp.
i got my 2008 ms3 for 22.5, show me a WRX or GTI near that price range?
i avg'd about 23-24mpg all city
and about 29-33 on a vegas trip from LA

 

[Hellotalkie]

that's the thing tho, you weren't buying them @ msrp.
i got my 2008 ms3 for 22.5, show me a WRX or GTI near that price range?
i avg'd about 23-24mpg all city
and about 29-33 on a vegas trip from LA

I got mine at 21.4 before TTL and that was with the maintenance package.

I couldn't get a WRX anywhere near that price. A base WRX would've been around 26-28k

An ST, still new at the time was anywhere from 24.5 to 27k



I am able to get 29MPG highway and 22-24MPG city.

 

[stag3]

yea mine was a GT right when the 08's came out. i probably could have haggled more off but i wanted the car bad hahaha.

i do miss it a lot now because a hatchback is so handy, and the car was quick. unfortunately once you make more power, you sat there in 1-3 gears while the front wheels spun, probably could have fixed it with wider rims and better tires but oh well.

 

[Arkaign]

This. When I was shopping for a WRX they were barely budging from their MSRP price and with everything said and done (TTL) a base WRX was going for 28k-ish.

Compared to the speed3 they gave it to me OTD for less than 25k. It may not seem like a huge difference in cost but at that price range 3k is still something to consider especially when the Mazda was much better equipped than the WRX and had tighter handling/more power/similar MPG.

I still believe that most people will not be able to get (in real negotiating situation) an Si, GTI, WRX, ST for less than a Speed3.

The other RWD coupes in this price range wont have the practicality of the hatch so it's hard to compare.

I'm a new hatch owner ('12 TC 6MT, I guess it's my first hatch .. ever?), and it is definitely convenient sometimes. But IMHO, my Sedans were just as convenient if not more so. I'd rather have 4 doors than 2+Hatch any day of the week. 5 door RWD/AWD hatch is the best of all worlds though 😀

 

[_Rick_]

N/A engines are the whole new line of engines from Mazda (branded Skyactive).

Sorry, but you obviously don't follow cars much...

I just don't follow Mazda very much.
But in the last two years, it's very rare to get a new engine with displacement >1.6L, that's not been turbocharged, outside a few exotics (F12 and Viper come to mind)

My current car is a 2012 model, with a "new" (i.e. significantly redeveloped) engine, that's a 1.6 N/A, and many reviewers chided it for being anachronistic, and lacking the turbo midrange torque they've so gotten used to.

And again, the RS Clio, the last generation's hot hatch bastion of natural aspiration has been replaced by a turbo this year. So the "car" market is definitely moving towards turbos. That Mazda is an exception is something I did miss - but then I don't care much about Mazda, because all they're known for lately is the CX-5 and fishy design language on the latest models.

The Clio was always putting out around 160 HP/ton, if the MS3/3MPS can match/beat that, all is well. If it can't...well, I'll be rather recommending a Clio 197....

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yeah I agree the move doesn't make sense to give up that much power when their competition is increasing power. I can somewhat see the argument about a high revving naturally aspirated engine for the performance version, but not anymore really. Even BMW couldn't make the case for them in the M cars.

I just don't follow Mazda very much.
But in the last two years, it's very rare to get a new engine with displacement >1.6L, that's not been turbocharged, outside a few exotics (F12 and Viper come to mind)

My current car is a 2012 model, with a "new" (i.e. significantly redeveloped) engine, that's a 1.6 N/A, and many reviewers chided it for being anachronistic, and lacking the turbo midrange torque they've so gotten used to.

And again, the RS Clio, the last generation's hot hatch bastion of natural aspiration has been replaced by a turbo this year. So the "car" market is definitely moving towards turbos. That Mazda is an exception is something I did miss - but then I don't care much about Mazda, because all they're known for lately is the CX-5 and fishy design language on the latest models.

The Clio was always putting out around 160 HP/ton, if the MS3/3MPS can match/beat that, all is well. If it can't...well, I'll be rather recommending a Clio 197....

What's even more baffling is they're doing stuff like this: http://green.autoblog.com/2012/09/24/mazda-wind-turbine-electric-double-layer-capacitors/

 

[exar333]

I got mine at 21.4 before TTL and that was with the maintenance package.

I couldn't get a WRX anywhere near that price. A base WRX would've been around 26-28k

An ST, still new at the time was anywhere from 24.5 to 27k



I am able to get 29MPG highway and 22-24MPG city.

This.

I was looking at a MS3 when I bought my WRX. The only reason I got the WRX is that I was VERY lucky and got my Limited for the price of a base model (long story) but truth be told, it was an amazing deal. All other dealers wanted MSRP + 1-2k. This was just after the whole tsunami thing...

The MS3 put the GTi to shame in all categories except MPGs, and even then it was competitive. You could not beat the OTD price they were willing to do though, and that was with the tech package and such. This car has been competitive, price-wise, with the Civic Si and puts it to shame in all categories. It is an amazing deal for ~22k.

 

[Zap]

All of what you said is wrong.

I get 29-33mpg highway with my MS3, and generally 25-28mpg with mixed driving. Everyone I know with a WRX or other turbocharged AWD car is in the 20-25mpg range. Fuelly shows the MS3 average around 25mpg and the WRX average around 22mpg.

We have a 2011 WRX and a 2007 Mazdaspeed 6 (close enough to MS3). The Mazdaspeed 6 definitely gets better gas mileage than the WRX. I think the EPA ratings were similar, if not the same. I estimate around 2-4MPG better "real world" over the WRX.

 

[JCH13]

We have a 2011 WRX and a 2007 Mazdaspeed 6 (close enough to MS3). The Mazdaspeed 6 definitely gets better gas mileage than the WRX. I think the EPA ratings were similar, if not the same. I estimate around 2-4MPG better "real world" over the WRX.

FTR (not directed at you, Zap) the MS6 has the same engine, is heavier, and has AWD, and still gets better mileage than a WRX.

 

[Topweasel]

Mazda has been pretty clear that they want small, light engines built for efficiency. Instead of going turbo or hybrid, they are getting similar MPGs thru their standard F/I engines and also focusing on overall light chassis.

I don't think any specific method is 100% right, but this is definitely not a move on the enthusiast front for the MS3 specifically, if true.

But that is the point. Ford, GM, VW for a long while. Even BMW and Merc. All have gone with even smaller and lighter engines with turbo's to keep the drive-ability up while getting great numbers. So why would a company that has had long term experience selling general consumer cars with turbo's be just about the only one to be moving away from them even in their enthusiast cars.

Lets ask the question a different way. What if you saw a bunch of companies switch up to wankle engines for their performance coupes for their performance per liter. Mazda then announces a RX9 and it has a 270 HP 3.7L V6 in it. Would that make sense?

It's not about option and which is right and wrong its about the fact that Mazda has been selling general consumer Turbo's for a long while. So it just seems strange that when car design seems to be moving towards their strong suit they go in a different direction.

 

[JCH13]

But that is the point. Ford, GM, VW for a long while. Even BMW and Merc. All have gone with even smaller and lighter engines with turbo's to keep the drive-ability up while getting great numbers. So why would a company that has had long term experience selling general consumer cars with turbo's be just about the only one to be moving away from them even in their enthusiast cars.

Lets ask the question a different way. What if you saw a bunch of companies switch up to wankle engines for their performance coupes for their performance per liter. Mazda then announces a RX9 and it has a 270 HP 3.7L V6 in it. Would that make sense?

It's not about option and which is right and wrong its about the fact that Mazda has been selling general consumer Turbo's for a long while. So it just seems strange that when car design seems to be moving towards their strong suit they go in a different direction.

You say that as if Mazda has a wide range of FI motors. They only recently had/have the 2.3L DISI that was in the MS3, CX-7, and MS6. Otherwise you only had specialty trim levels with turbos (Mazdaspeed P5, Mazdaspeed Miata, a few flavors of RX-7). Their bread and butter: MZ3, MZ6, CX5, CX9, Miata, and RX8 are all NA.

Granted the MS3 was one of the most visible cars they made, but a vast majority of their vehicles are and were NA.

I think it's a great move for enthusiasts. Sure, it's not too appealing to the power junkies, but lighter is better in every other way.

 

[Topweasel]

You say that as if Mazda has a wide range of FI motors. They only recently had/have the 2.3L DISI that was in the MS3, CX-7, and MS6. Otherwise you only had specialty trim levels with turbos (Mazdaspeed P5, Mazdaspeed Miata, a few flavors of RX-7). Their bread and butter: MZ3, MZ6, CX5, CX9, Miata, and RX8 are all NA.

Granted the MS3 was one of the most visible cars they made, but a vast majority of their vehicles are and were NA.

I think it's a great move for enthusiasts. Sure, it's not too appealing to the power junkies, but lighter is better in every other way.

Compared to most they had. I mean think of Ford themselves. Outside Mazda they had practically nothing for decades. Then a little while with the Focus ST.

Chrysler had the SRT-4, Caliber SRT-4, and the Crossfire SRT-6. With only the Neon version selling more then 10k in its whole life and the SRT-6 being completely done by Merc.

GM had the Cobalt SS and for a little bit the Solstice GXP and Sky Redline.

While Mazda is a Japanese company they have been primarily controlled like an American label and the few times they had freedom to do something themselves it was the RX's, the MX-5, and their Turbo units. So now with more freedom and more Japanese in them they are moving away from Turbo's (un-Japanese of them) all the while companies that have barely touched them are starting to sell them as volume engines. Just seems odd and I don't think its odd to say that its odd.

 

[hans007]

I just don't follow Mazda very much.
But in the last two years, it's very rare to get a new engine with displacement >1.6L, that's not been turbocharged, outside a few exotics (F12 and Viper come to mind)

My current car is a 2012 model, with a "new" (i.e. significantly redeveloped) engine, that's a 1.6 N/A, and many reviewers chided it for being anachronistic, and lacking the turbo midrange torque they've so gotten used to.

And again, the RS Clio, the last generation's hot hatch bastion of natural aspiration has been replaced by a turbo this year. So the "car" market is definitely moving towards turbos. That Mazda is an exception is something I did miss - but then I don't care much about Mazda, because all they're known for lately is the CX-5 and fishy design language on the latest models.

The Clio was always putting out around 160 HP/ton, if the MS3/3MPS can match/beat that, all is well. If it can't...well, I'll be rather recommending a Clio 197....

the NA engines i can think of that are fairly new in the last 2 years and bigger than 1.6 L off the top of my head are...

the earthdreams honda engines. the skyactive mazda engines. and the 2.7 L boxer in the cayman / boxster (it was a non DI 2.9 before, so i guess this is new right?)

but yeah pretty rare these days.

i would guess the 3.5 L vq in FWD applications for nissan will be going away eventually too. they have a 2.5 L supercharged 4 in the new pathfinder hybrid, which puts out about the same power as the V6, and gets better MPG so i could see that filtering down to transverse nissan FWD cars

 

[JCH13]

Compared to most they had. I mean think of Ford themselves. Outside Mazda they had practically nothing for decades. Then a little while with the Focus ST.

Chrysler had the SRT-4, Caliber SRT-4, and the Crossfire SRT-6. With only the Neon version selling more then 10k in its whole life and the SRT-6 being completely done by Merc.

GM had the Cobalt SS and for a little bit the Solstice GXP and Sky Redline.

While Mazda is a Japanese company they have been primarily controlled like an American label and the few times they had freedom to do something themselves it was the RX's, the MX-5, and their Turbo units. So now with more freedom and more Japanese in them they are moving away from Turbo's (un-Japanese of them) all the while companies that have barely touched them are starting to sell them as volume engines. Just seems odd and I don't think its odd to say that its odd.

You say it's un-Japanese to move away from turbos... when was the last time Honda or Toyota made a turbocharged vehicle for the US market?

 

[_Rick_]

You say it's un-Japanese to move away from turbos... when was the last time Honda or Toyota made a turbocharged vehicle for the US market?

Acura RDX, up until 2012?

For Toyota it's a bit more difficult, I haven't been able to find anything in the 2000s....
There is a supercharged Toyota engine in the Lotus Evora S and Exige S though 😉

Well, Honda has always been a proponent of the high-rev model, in it's performance cars. NSX and S2000 were both peaky designs, so there's little surprise that they don't build turbo rocket ships.

Although Toyota did have the Supra, MR2 and Celica turbos, the more recent Lexus LFA was also a high-revving concept, and the GT86 is also a statement, that N/A in performance cars is still doable, despite all the complaints they got for it.

But then there's Subaru on the other side, churning out turbo charged engines left and right, and Nissan isn't turbo-shy either.

 

[JCH13]

Acura RDX, up until 2012?

For Toyota it's a bit more difficult, I haven't been able to find anything in the 2000s....
There is a supercharged Toyota engine in the Lotus Evora S and Exige S though 😉

Well, Honda has always been a proponent of the high-rev model, in it's performance cars. NSX and S2000 were both peaky designs, so there's little surprise that they don't build turbo rocket ships.

Although Toyota did have the Supra, MR2 and Celica turbos, the more recent Lexus LFA was also a high-revving concept, and the GT86 is also a statement, that N/A in performance cars is still doable, despite all the complaints they got for it.

But then there's Subaru on the other side, churning out turbo charged engines left and right, and Nissan isn't turbo-shy either.

I wasn't saying that no Japanese automakers use turbos, just that it's not common anymore. Subaru does have a large number of turbocharged vehicles, but they use the same turbo engine in nearly every one of their cars, like Mazda used to do.

Turbo engines can be powerful, but they are heavy and complicated and require more time and money to fully develop. This is why we're only seeing NA engines in Mazda's recently re-vamped engine line-up, at least for now.