Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The MPS will have more traction off the line, and the Commodore V8s run the world's widest gear ratios.

Standing kilometre the Commodore will smash the MPS, but quarter mile I reckon it'll be close.

Love to see some actual dragstrip numbers though.

The mazda 6 has recorded mid 14 sec passes and 0-100 6.4 seconds.Not exactly a slouch by anymeans and would show alot of LS1 commodores a bit of cheek down the 1/4.

i saw about 3 LS1 commys run 14.8 to 15.6 sec 1/4 last night at willowbank.

The mazda 3 mps is supposed to run 0-100 in 6 flat.Imagine an edited cpu,exhaust,cia and air pod with a tickle of some boost and retuned would see a lot of modded LS1 guys running scared :)

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

its weird how it gains 200kg over the luxury sports hatch auto 6.... must like that sound deadener alot

You're right. It must be sound deadener.

Because the driveshaft, rear diff, rear tail shafts etc probably wouldn't add any extra weight, and the turbocharger and its associated plumbing are made of ultra-light materials that wouldn't register a blip on the scales. :P

Its in the rear diff and shafts as you said.If you think they dont weigh much,take a look at the Ford control blade IRS in the falcon.Thats what made the falcon so heavy and will make the new VE commy platform another 200 kg heavier than the last model.

My 2 cents

The mazda 6 has recorded mid 14 sec passes and 0-100 6.4 seconds.Not exactly a slouch by anymeans and would show alot of LS1 commodores a bit of cheek down the 1/4.

i saw about 3 LS1 commys run 14.8 to 15.6 sec 1/4 last night at willowbank.

The mazda 3 mps is supposed to run 0-100 in 6 flat.Imagine an edited cpu,exhaust,cia and air pod with a tickle of some boost and retuned would see a lot of modded LS1 guys running scared :P

I'm afraid the only places quoting mid 14's are 'guessing' there is no actual 'test' that I've been able to find as yet. The 6.5 second claim is a factory one too.

same weight and 70kw not to mention 130nm of torque shy of the basic V8 comodore on offer, it would keep up in someones dreams.

I would gladly take money on a bet on how much quicker the new commo' would be if I were to take both over the standing 1/4mile. It's simple math.

This car is a 1639kg 'barge' it needs lots more than 190kw and a gay amount of torque to make it quick.

OR take 200kgs out of it.

Its in the rear diff and shafts as you said.If you think they dont weigh much,take a look at the Ford control blade IRS in the falcon.Thats what made the falcon so heavy and will make the new VE commy platform another 200 kg heavier than the last model.

The 4WD Porsche 996 weighs about 150kg more than its 2WD counterpart. And given how anal Porsche is about weight, they probably would have gotten it as light as they could have afforded in a $250,000 car.....

How about the Mazda 3 MPS Turbo Front Wheel Driven.

http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/article.aspx?id=11169

http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery/spysh.../3-mps/mps.html

2.3L Turbo Engine from the Mazda 6 MPS with a Mazda 3 shell less the AWD.

184kw@fly (detuned) 380Nm Of Torque

Price from $40,000.

0-100km/h in 6.1sec

i reckon with a FMIC, Exhaust, Pod and a bit of boost and tuning this thing will be a little monster!

i around 1300kg (a bit heavy but still 180kw STANDARD trim!) haha

I'm afraid the only places quoting mid 14's are 'guessing' there is no actual 'test' that I've been able to find as yet. The 6.5 second claim is a factory one too.

same weight and 70kw not to mention 130nm of torque shy of the basic V8 comodore on offer, it would keep up in someones dreams.

I would gladly take money on a bet on how much quicker the new commo' would be if I were to take both over the standing 1/4mile. It's simple math.

This car is a 1639kg 'barge' it needs lots more than 190kw and a gay amount of torque to make it quick.

OR take 200kgs out of it.

Remember its AWD so it can launch alot harder than a stock commy.Not saying a commy wouldnt beat it but the 60 foot time will tell you who gets out of the hole first.

So has anyone actually driven one of the 3L 6cyl libs yet?

Yeah I have.

Been lookin for somethin to lease, and narrowed it to 4 cars to drive. 06 STi, Evo IV, Liberty STi, Liberty 3.0 R Spec B. I'm not into anything euro. And I wouldn't consider an MPS, they're too obviously based on a front-wheel-drive. The whole 4WD settup seems like tryin to p*ss around a corner to me!

I drove all except the Evo, which to be honest I went off when I sat in it and looked around it. No doubt a great car, and would be my preference for a targa car or something, but at my age I'm lookin for a little "feel good" factor when you sit in and drive the car. I've been through the whole "stiffly suspended and difficult to live with stage". They really are a tarted up shopping trolley - quality wise.

New STi was fantastic, especially compared to my last STi experience (an '02 STi Bug-eye) - handling much nicer (less under), and good (not great, especially compared to RB26) torque spread. Very hard to put up with the immature carpet and trim treatment though, not to mention the insipid body kit.

I ruled out the GT by STi fairly quickly, it's fairly obvious that these will be re-released soon as a 2.5l (with a six speed?), and I didn't want to be stuck with an orphan come trade-in time.

I liked the 3.0R most, great engine sound, great 'box, crisp throttle response, really nice interior, awesome quality stereo, clean looks (I'd go a black wagon), good ride/handling compromise, just a nice car. Not that fast, but respectable. But compared to turbo cars, no real opportunity to step up the power when you want to.

So, for me, I'd still go the 3.0R, I'm just struggling to come to grips with spending $55k when it looks virtually the same as the neighbors 2.0 base model. Talk about keepin up with the Jones'es!

Oh, and sorry about rambling too!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...