if it doesn't have AWD, expect people in their 50's to wreck as well. hehe.

 

Guys, it's a sweet looking ride BUT:

If you look at the problems that the Mazda Speed 6 is having, it's because they mated a turbo to a 4-cylinder instead of using the V-6 and supercharging that because they didn't want to pay the money for R&D. The Speed 6 is having a lot of overheating problems with the turbo because of the 4-cylinder. The same thing will happen with the Speed 3 until they get it right.

Also, it'll be upwards of 30K or just below with mark-ups to boot and the gas mileage won't be that impressive. With 250-HP in that small of a car, TORQUE STEER will be AWFUL! Great idea...but a little rushed...that's why I just bought my 06 2.3GT Mazda 3....I have a friend who got me this info before it hit Car and Driver and that's what steered me away from waiting for the Speed 3.

Just my $0.02,
Jason

 

I haven't looked at the specs on the mazda speed 3. the torque might be way to much for that little car and make you crank sideways when romping on the gas. a limited slip differential should be put in as an option for the mazda lineups.

as for the mazda 6 speed, i havent researched them that much either. thats no good to have overheating but i called that the day i heard they were turbocharging a 4 cyl. there is just too much stress on a small engine. if the 6 cylinder engine would be turboed, then there would be a lot less problems to worry about. maybe one day these guys will get it right!

 

Yeah let's just look at this example. I traded in a 2001 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi (240HP, 280ft.lb torque from a SUPERCHARGED 3.8L V-6) for the Mazda 3s GT that I'll be picking up tomorrow. The new version of the Bonneville (2004 and 2005 model years -- now they've killed the line) had the Northstar V-8 in it producing 275HP and 280ft.lb torque from a 4.2L V-8. Mazda put 274HP on a 2.3litre 4-cylinder engine for the Speed 6...they're doing the same thing for the Speed 3. The torque steer will be tremedous with 280ftlb torque in that little car with FWD....not putting in AWD really hurt. There IS a LSD in the Speed 3, however, Mazda didn't want to put AWD on the Speed 3 because they knew that would drive the price OVER 30K. As it stands, it'll be around 27-28K but they're gonna have trouble moving them just as they are with the Speed 6. They are GREAT CONCEPTS! HOWEVER, you gotta supercharge the V-6 NOT the 4-cylinder which means Mazda (Ford as the Parent company actually made the decision to use the 4-cylinder and avoid R&D costs) has to invest the R&D. If they do that, price will come down, torque steer won't be AS much a problem and you won't HAVE to have AWD to correct the problem not to mention the stress on the V-6 will be much lighter....you could easily get to 274 HP from 215HP (rating for the V-6 Mazda 6) with a small supercharger (6lb of boost).

Jason

 

the SRT-4 is FWD 235HP and has not torque steer and no overheating problems.. 4-cyl has nothing to do with overheating. The problem wih the MS6 and the overheating is because for some reason Mazda decided to put the intercooler on top of the engine and not in fron of the radiator like SRT-4 is.

 

Jason,
Respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about.

The main reason the Mazdaspeed6 has the 4-cyl is because it is built in Japan. The US domestically produced 3.0L engines (Ford) are not exported to Japan. As they produce the vehicle in Japan, they are using the powertrain options that are available to them.

The R&D costs for turbocharging a 4cyl or a 6cyl are virtually identical.

The 4-cyl also weighs less and gives you a better front/rear weight distribution aiding in handling.

I agree AWD would have been nice to have in the Speed3

 

I do know what I'm talking about first of all. Second, I'm not offended at all...I have much thicker skin than that The Mazdas here in the states are BUILT here not in Japan so you're wrong on that point. Also, the R&D costs are NOT identical for the 4-cylinder and the 6-cylinder. They (Mazda) already had the specs for turboing the 4-cyl but they didn't want to take the time and money to do it to the 6-cylinder because it would have drove the cost higher than they wanted in terms of the car's costs and as a result they are experiencing problems with the engine as well as the intercooler being placed on top of the engine. The SRT-4 (whoever it was that quoted that) is a piece of junk car. Look at the problems in the forums with that car.

As I said, no offense taken but you need to be the same way and realize I DO know what I am talking about

Thanks,
Jason

 

fight fight fight. jk

 

examples WRX and Evo Eclipse GSX/GST and many other 4 CYL dont overheat, and it not only the problem with putting the intercooler up top but its that mazda doesnt have much experience with stock turbo vehicles, they didnt compensate for the intercooler to have a hood scoop like the WRXs and mitsubishi but the intercooler upfront because they didnt want customers coming back saying "its overheating" and a V-6 i think would actually heat up quicker b/cuz of the extra 2 cyl, mazda need to either transfer the intercooler to the front or make a hood scoop or just get rid of the DISI turbo, they made it and pushed it w/o testing all possiblities of overheat/wear and tear. before buying any mazdaspeed, wait for them to come out with a koyo radiator or FMIC

theres my werd

 

Mazdaspeed6 (AWD turbo) is built in Japan, all the rest of the Mazda6s for the North American market are made in Flat Rock, MI at AutoAlliance International (Ford/Mazda joint venture). I'm an engineer on the Mazda6 program and have been for over 5 years. I know a thing or two about the Mazda6 and where/how it is made. I can assure you 100% that the Mazdaspeed6 is built in Japan.....I've even been to the plant in Japan.

Mazda prefers to have their engines in their cars. The 2.3L is one of the Mazda powerplants available to them (they could have always gone rotary if they had wanted to.) the 3.0L V6 is a Ford engine. Only in North America to we scream for V6 "power", and as soon as we give the customer what they want (I must have a V6!!!) we get complaints of poor mileage....Everywhere else in the world they do just fine with 4-cyl engines. 276hp is no where near the upper limits on the 2.3L engine if built properly.

And again, the 4-cyl has better front/rear weight distribution than the 6-cyl.

The 3.0L is a notoriously slow-revving engine (in my opinion), and the 2.3L will build boost quicker. Turbos are more efficient as there isn't any parasitic drag from having to drive the supercharger pulley off of the crank. I think Mazda's engine choice was spot on. It would have been nice to have slightly increased the displacement of the motor (maybe 2.5L), but there are limited resources available to a vehicle made in limited quantities (every vehicle line MUST make profit to be produced.)

You may know a thing or two about engines, but it doesn't seem to me you have any understanding of the business relationships between Mazda/Ford.