[okhick]

Looking at Australian Mazda web sites I was able to get some interesting spec observations. Curb weight for fwd auto is listed at about 2700 lbs, This is about 250/300 lighter than I expected. This gives it a pwr/ wt ratio of about 17.4 lbs per horse. Compare this to the Aussie 2 liter 3 with auto at 18.5hp/lb and the 2.5 3 at 16lbs per hp. This indicates to me that acceleration will be in the middle of these two.

Also compare to the Aussie HRV(Vesel) auto which Honda says weighs 2921 with only 138 hp for a pwr to weight ratio of 21lbs per horse., not even the same ballpark.

Edit. Still checking specs on Australian CX3. The 2 liter has been retuned to provide just 146 hp as apposed to 155 in the 3. Hope we don't get that engine. If so the above conjecture based on 155 hp engine is not valid.

 

[okhick]

Just for kicks, anybody want to join me in making some predictions
for what is likely the most popular model, the fwd auto? Sorry, no prizes for best guess, except a minor ego trip.

0-60 7.5 sec ( if we get 155 horse engine)

EPA highway 37
city 31
combined 33

 

[omicron]

Just for comparison the CX5:
2.0 L 155HP FWD
26-32 MPG AT
3291lbs AT
ratio (weight/HP) = 21.23

If the CX3 is about 600lbs less, maybe 30/36 MPG with 32 combined.

 

[Kanban]

one of the quicker in segment surely

 

[CXIII]

test driving and comparing it to its competition in the real world will be a must.

mazda needs to do just this for the media, so we get their end of it.

 

[Volta]

Mazda definitely has much more ability to compete on the MPG front than the hp and torque front. I'm hoping for an MPG rating around 34 combined. Finger crossed.

What do you guys think that the top speed for the CX-3 would be?

 

[okhick]

I'm guessing 125/128 if we get an ungoverened 155hp motor.

 

[okhick]

Just for comparison the CX5:
2.0 L 155HP FWD
26-32 MPG AT
3291lbs AT
ratio (weight/HP) = 21.23

If the CX3 is about 600lbs less, maybe 30/36 MPG with 32 combined.

After further study, I think your figures will prove more accurate than mine.
(hope not)

 

[Jay]

I'd be happy with 32 combined, but wouldn't be surprised to see them bump those figures as high as high 30's over the years as they refine and tune the engine for better power and MPG

 

[okhick]

test driving and comparing it to its competition in the real world will be a must.

mazda needs to do just this for the media, so we get their end of it.

That's right, but It could be a while before the press gets full access to the U.S. production model, maybe as late as right around the time they show up on dealer lots where we can get our hands on them. In the meantime we can amuse ourselves with some mindless (but harmless) speculation.:nerd:

 

[CXIII]

That's right, but It could be a while before the press gets full access to the U.S. production model, maybe as late as right around the time they show up on dealer lots where we can get our hands on them. In the meantime we can amuse ourselves with some mindless (but harmless) speculation.:nerd:

True.

And it can be said that Mazda may not need the leverage that comes with having all the mainstream publications review their vehicle, already the CX-3 has enough going on to draw in interest.

Hopefully we'll get to see something before we get our first look.

 

[scooterCT]

Two words: Rotary Engine!

How does a 155 MPH CX-3 sound? I mean, it's a shame to waste all that rotary tooling.

(Says an eternally optimistic 1993 RX7-R1 owner)

 

[okhick]

93? That was the last gen RX-7 wasn't it? I always admired those cars, much more than RX-8s that followed. But barring a technological breakthrough, I believe the rotary is dead. Lightweight for power generated and smooth revving, that was not enough for the mass market more interested in low end push, durability (rotor tip seals) and fuel economy. Its a motor for you guys more beguiled by its attributes than put off with its shortcomings and there are just not enough of you out there. With ever tightening fuel economy standards to meet, I can't see Mazda producing something to sink their average.

Much rather see a 1.5turbo of say 185 hp. It would not do 155 but if the Fiesta ST (1.6 liter, 197 hp) is any indication, it be would be plenty quick with lots of torque, and deliver decent fuel mileage.



Still got the 7? Share the experience.

 

[CXIII]

93? That was the last gen RX-7 wasn't it? I always admired those cars, much more than RX-8s that followed. But barring a technological breakthrough, I believe the rotary is dead. Lightweight for power generated and smooth revving, that was not enough for the mass market more interested in low end push, durability (rotor tip seals) and fuel economy. Its a motor for you guys more beguiled by its attributes than put off with its shortcomings and there are just not enough of you out there. With ever tightening fuel economy standards to meet, I can't see Mazda producing something to sink their average.

Much rather see a 1.5turbo of say 185 hp. It would not do 155 but if the Fiesta ST (1.6 liter, 197 hp) is any indication, it be would be plenty quick with lots of torque, and deliver decent fuel mileage.



Still got the 7? Share the experience.

That 93 year model was part of the last coolest generation of RX vehicles.
Going forward we should see a return of a better RX vehicle, something at the very least better than the RX-8!

 

[okhick]

Doesn't anyone in Aussieland own a stopwatch? I mean, pardon the sarcasm but the car has been out a while and reviewed by several testers on the web. What is so hard about testing 0-60? (or 0-100kph for metric types). I would much rather have that information than their opinions on its styling. I can see that for myself.

I do it in every car I buy, just to see how reality stacks up against press reports.

Have I missed something somewhere?

 

[videone]

Doesn't anyone in Aussieland own a stopwatch? I mean, pardon the sarcasm but the car has been out a while and reviewed by several testers on the web. What is so hard about testing 0-60? (or 0-100kph for metric types). I would much rather have that information than their opinions on its styling. I can see that for myself.

I do it in every car I buy, just to see how reality stacks up against press reports.

Have I missed something somewhere?

I think I saw a 0-100 KPH of around 9 seconds in some review...that seems way too slow to me.

 

[okhick]

Considering 1-100 kph could add a 1/2 second vs 0-60 mph and the Australian version has 9 fewer hp than we are hoping for here, 9.0 may not be much out of line.

 

[okhick]

As more info becomes available my enthusiasm wains. We will definitely get the weakened engine. Mazda's projected Highway fuel economy (35 mpg)is lower than most of us would have guessed. Maybe official figures will be higher(or lower) but likely not by much. Mazda 3 looks better all the time.

 

[HelloThereCX3]

As more info becomes available my enthusiasm wains. We will definitely get the weakened engine. Mazda's projected Highway fuel economy (35 mpg)is lower than most of us would have guessed. Maybe official figures will be higher(or lower) but likely not by much. Mazda 3 looks better all the time.

Debatable if the MZ3 'looks' better than the CX3.

Depends on people's personal criteria & whether they prioritize: HP/TQ vs. Utility vs. MPG vs. Styling etc.

1 year ago I would have bought a MZ3 because of its heritage (I have a '06 MZ3). But the more I researched, I found the car to be stylistically too feminine, HP/TQ too pedestrian (vs. a GTI), & price too high (vs. GTI).
So the only thing it offered me was the solid MPG & nice interior.

vs.

Currently: CX3 ticks the box for style & everything else is secondary or even tertiary.

 

[okhick]

If style trumps all, I'm with you. I want a better looking 3 or better performing CX.