Engine Theory & Discussion
June-21st-2002, 08:35 AM
#16
Protege Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 53
Slow
Yeah, our engines are slow and there'e really no reason for them to be so lacking except that Mazda dropped the ball.
However, I still think our cars are far and away the best looking cars sold for under 20 grand. I've added great wheels and MP3 suspension and I'm still under 20. Now it handles better than a Corvette Z06 in the slalom according to Road and Track.
If I add another grand worth of parts (cams, cat-back exhaust), the car will be right up there with the other imports, look better and handle way better. For the money I spent, this car was well worth the money- for a new car.
However, I still think our cars are far and away the best looking cars sold for under 20 grand. I've added great wheels and MP3 suspension and I'm still under 20. Now it handles better than a Corvette Z06 in the slalom according to Road and Track.
If I add another grand worth of parts (cams, cat-back exhaust), the car will be right up there with the other imports, look better and handle way better. For the money I spent, this car was well worth the money- for a new car.
June-21st-2002, 09:42 AM
#17
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Central New York
Posts: 1,241
it seems to me that a lot of you guys are bent on knocking the FS engines. i think they have great potential. i noticed that the specs for the SR20DE were posted. it has a square bore/stroke ratio. if the FS engine had a square bore/stroke ratio it would probably rev to 7500 rpm easily and have 150 hp. but it doesn't, because it was designed as a truck engine, as stated, and therefore was designed to have gobs of torque, which it does. then look at the FS-ZE. 170 hp? 130 ft-lbs? those are good numbers, and that is with a CR of what 10.2:1? with better fuel management, higher compression, better cams, and nothing else, i would wager to say that the 2.0 liter protege engine could easily reach 150 hp before 6500 rpm. (maybe even 160 hp) oh, and the matrix engine only has 180 hp at what 8000 rpm? good god man! if it didn't switch to the bigger cam it would still only have 135 hp as seen in the lower models, with less torque too. is that really better than the protege? and the new sentra has a much bigger engine, which by the way put out proportionally less power than the protege 2.0 liter.
June-21st-2002, 10:33 AM
#18
Protege God
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 1,525
Just thought I'd point out that the FS Mazda engines were redesigned by Mazda in the early 90's. They have little in common with the older F, F2, and FE long stroke truck engines that came before them. They have more in common with the 1.8L BP engine people seem to give so much more credit to. The destroked 1.8L FP engine shares the same bore and stroke as the 1.8L BP (83mm x 85mm). I've owned a '93 Sentra SE-R and a '95 200 SX SE-R, and I agree Nissan designs and manufacturers excellent engines. That seems to be their specialty. Neither car was very attractive, the '93 had a very flexy chassis, and the '95 had an early Chrysler minivan rear suspension. The fact is none of the auto manufactures does everything right. By the canvas that appeals to you most, and finish it the way you like it. We're all supposed to be car ENTHUSIASTS here right? Would you really be happy if it was all done for you right from the start? I agree that Mazda's approach to the sport compact market is wrong for that very reason. With the MP3 and upcoming MazdaSpeed 3, they're outsourcing too much engine and suspension tuning, which keeps the price high and availability low. Forget the Sparco, Kenwood, etc. interior trim and put those in house Mazda engineers to work on the engine and suspension. Give us a great canvas to personalize ourselves.
June-21st-2002, 11:21 AM
#19
Get in my belly!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: FL
Posts: 362
Originally posted by Fez
Ok. Here's apples to apples.
My friend has an 01 Nissan Sentra SE (SR20DE)
They only made this car for 1 year since the 2.0L in it is too low-tech for Nissan to use anymore. This car is almost exactly the same as my 2.0L Mazda Protege ES. Sure, it doesn't look quite as good, and it probably is a bit less stiff. But it's still got 16inch alloys, 4whl disc brakes, similar dimensions, everything. It also cost almost exactly the same amount of money (Mine was actually a bit more expensive, but that was because of a few options). (Oh yeah, the Sentra SE also came with LSD standard)
The SE makes 145 hp with NO variable valve timing and it's naturally aspirated. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my Protege, but the engine really is it's weakest point. I don't find it to be too loud, but it should really make at least 10 more HP STOCK. (The nissan also makes 1 more lb/ft).
The Nissan engine has been around a few years longer, so I guess they've had time to get it right, but it made 140 hp way back on the original SE-R.
Sure our engine is better for turboing, but the car doesn't come with a turbo, and the VAST majority of people do NOT install turbo kits because they are EXPENSIVE, they void your warranty, and they reduce the reliability of your car (more parts = more things that can break).
I wish there were a cheap and easy way of getting a few more mpg out of the Mazda 2.0. Unfortunately, mediocre engines really seem to be holding Mazda back as far as sales are concerned.
Every other current sport compact has an aluminum block, EXCEPT for the Protege. There's no reason to use iron blocks anymore.
Ok. Here's apples to apples.
My friend has an 01 Nissan Sentra SE (SR20DE)
They only made this car for 1 year since the 2.0L in it is too low-tech for Nissan to use anymore. This car is almost exactly the same as my 2.0L Mazda Protege ES. Sure, it doesn't look quite as good, and it probably is a bit less stiff. But it's still got 16inch alloys, 4whl disc brakes, similar dimensions, everything. It also cost almost exactly the same amount of money (Mine was actually a bit more expensive, but that was because of a few options). (Oh yeah, the Sentra SE also came with LSD standard)
The SE makes 145 hp with NO variable valve timing and it's naturally aspirated. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my Protege, but the engine really is it's weakest point. I don't find it to be too loud, but it should really make at least 10 more HP STOCK. (The nissan also makes 1 more lb/ft).
The Nissan engine has been around a few years longer, so I guess they've had time to get it right, but it made 140 hp way back on the original SE-R.
Sure our engine is better for turboing, but the car doesn't come with a turbo, and the VAST majority of people do NOT install turbo kits because they are EXPENSIVE, they void your warranty, and they reduce the reliability of your car (more parts = more things that can break).
I wish there were a cheap and easy way of getting a few more mpg out of the Mazda 2.0. Unfortunately, mediocre engines really seem to be holding Mazda back as far as sales are concerned.
Every other current sport compact has an aluminum block, EXCEPT for the Protege. There's no reason to use iron blocks anymore.
June-21st-2002, 11:26 AM
#20
Get in my belly!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: FL
Posts: 362
Originally posted by njaremka
it seems to me that a lot of you guys are bent on knocking the FS engines. i think they have great potential. i noticed that the specs for the SR20DE were posted. it has a square bore/stroke ratio. if the FS engine had a square bore/stroke ratio it would probably rev to 7500 rpm easily and have 150 hp. but it doesn't, because it was designed as a truck engine, as stated, and therefore was designed to have gobs of torque, which it does. then look at the FS-ZE. 170 hp? 130 ft-lbs? those are good numbers, and that is with a CR of what 10.2:1? with better fuel management, higher compression, better cams, and nothing else, i would wager to say that the 2.0 liter protege engine could easily reach 150 hp before 6500 rpm. (maybe even 160 hp) oh, and the matrix engine only has 180 hp at what 8000 rpm? good god man! if it didn't switch to the bigger cam it would still only have 135 hp as seen in the lower models, with less torque too. is that really better than the protege? and the new sentra has a much bigger engine, which by the way put out proportionally less power than the protege 2.0 liter.
it seems to me that a lot of you guys are bent on knocking the FS engines. i think they have great potential. i noticed that the specs for the SR20DE were posted. it has a square bore/stroke ratio. if the FS engine had a square bore/stroke ratio it would probably rev to 7500 rpm easily and have 150 hp. but it doesn't, because it was designed as a truck engine, as stated, and therefore was designed to have gobs of torque, which it does. then look at the FS-ZE. 170 hp? 130 ft-lbs? those are good numbers, and that is with a CR of what 10.2:1? with better fuel management, higher compression, better cams, and nothing else, i would wager to say that the 2.0 liter protege engine could easily reach 150 hp before 6500 rpm. (maybe even 160 hp) oh, and the matrix engine only has 180 hp at what 8000 rpm? good god man! if it didn't switch to the bigger cam it would still only have 135 hp as seen in the lower models, with less torque too. is that really better than the protege? and the new sentra has a much bigger engine, which by the way put out proportionally less power than the protege 2.0 liter.
June-21st-2002, 01:28 PM
#21
Demands Perfection
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 344
Whoops!
Mea culpa. PseudoRealityX is totally right about the SR/GA Nissan engine differences! My bad! Sorry about that, everyone.
In any event, BOTH engines are still very reliable, and I still maintain that Nissan makes better engines than Mazda. So does Toyota.... So does Honda...
And with further clarification, I don't mean to directly be ripping on Mazda engine design. What I believe deserves ripping on is Mazda's complacency through the years while other engine manufacturers kept putting out better designs. Part of what I'm seeing people talking about here is how it's not fair to compare the FS-DE to the other engines noted on this thread because the others are newer designs. If that's true, then what really sucks is the fact that Mazda is still putting these engines in their cars, despite their outdated design, as if it's acceptible to keep old-*** technology while others are forging years ahead. That's what sucks!
The more I think about it, it really does seem like the weakest link is the engine in our Pros. Being that I don't tend to race, I'm okay with lesser power, I guess, but I would really like it if our Pros had engines that were more efficient and quiet. With more modern design you'd also get extra power, which would just be an added bonus to me, and at the same time be a real benefit to those who really want the power for racing. It seems we can all agree on at least this one statement: The Protege needs a more modern engine design!
I've found this discussion really interesting, in any event! Thanks for your guys' input!
In any event, BOTH engines are still very reliable, and I still maintain that Nissan makes better engines than Mazda. So does Toyota.... So does Honda...
And with further clarification, I don't mean to directly be ripping on Mazda engine design. What I believe deserves ripping on is Mazda's complacency through the years while other engine manufacturers kept putting out better designs. Part of what I'm seeing people talking about here is how it's not fair to compare the FS-DE to the other engines noted on this thread because the others are newer designs. If that's true, then what really sucks is the fact that Mazda is still putting these engines in their cars, despite their outdated design, as if it's acceptible to keep old-*** technology while others are forging years ahead. That's what sucks!
The more I think about it, it really does seem like the weakest link is the engine in our Pros. Being that I don't tend to race, I'm okay with lesser power, I guess, but I would really like it if our Pros had engines that were more efficient and quiet. With more modern design you'd also get extra power, which would just be an added bonus to me, and at the same time be a real benefit to those who really want the power for racing. It seems we can all agree on at least this one statement: The Protege needs a more modern engine design!
I've found this discussion really interesting, in any event! Thanks for your guys' input!
June-21st-2002, 01:49 PM
#22
Get in my belly!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: FL
Posts: 362
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but the one thing I have to point out is that YOU bought a protege and it was ultimately your choice. You shouldnt wish you had another car because your isnt good enough. Its the one you chose. Now if you were saying I wish I had a Porsche because mines not as fast then that would be different. But if you could afford the Pro then you could have afforded a Honda, Nissan or Toyota and should have bought one of those instead!!! Just my $0.02 
June-21st-2002, 02:11 PM
#23
Demands Perfection
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 344
Choice Clarification
Actually, I hear what you're saying-- There indeed are elements of those other manufacturers that I prefer, but I chose the Protege over them for these primary reasons:
------------------
The Protege offers the best possible reliability in a small car; equal to Toyota, and better than Honda now. Reliability is my paramount issue in a car.
When I bought my ' 01 Protege ES, the Corolla was the old, previous generation boring-*** design. I didn't consider it ugly, just boring. The new Civic, on the other hand (which I test drove) IS ugly. The new Sentra has a lame rear end, and it looks like it's *** is about to fall off. Stereotypes not withstanding, the Sentra is also built in Mexico, and I'd rather have a Japanese made vehicle, hands down. And the back seat in the Sentra? Small and cramped. It's not as roomy a car as the Protege.
The Protege, as eluded to above, easily looks better than all of those cars. I continue to think it's an awesome looking ride.
I like the idea of owning a car that isn't also owned by every other Tom, Dick, and Harry on the block. If I wanted to be like everyone else and their butt-uncle I would have bought a Civic.
The price I secured on my ES was far better than I could find on any of the other cars I was considering when I decided to buy a new car. For an excellent, excellent price I got a loaded, brand new car-- The best equipped car I've yet owned. That carried a lot of weight to me.
--------------------
In all of this discussion, I don't wish to sound like I'm completely ungrateful for the benefits of owning a Protege. I just get ticked off at some of its deficiencies, given that I feel the Pro could have been a stellar car instead of just a good one. Hey! Maybe it could be likened to automotive blue-balling! You know, you get so close to complete, all around greatness, but then Mazda just didn't quite get there.
------------------
The Protege offers the best possible reliability in a small car; equal to Toyota, and better than Honda now. Reliability is my paramount issue in a car.
When I bought my ' 01 Protege ES, the Corolla was the old, previous generation boring-*** design. I didn't consider it ugly, just boring. The new Civic, on the other hand (which I test drove) IS ugly. The new Sentra has a lame rear end, and it looks like it's *** is about to fall off. Stereotypes not withstanding, the Sentra is also built in Mexico, and I'd rather have a Japanese made vehicle, hands down. And the back seat in the Sentra? Small and cramped. It's not as roomy a car as the Protege.
The Protege, as eluded to above, easily looks better than all of those cars. I continue to think it's an awesome looking ride.
I like the idea of owning a car that isn't also owned by every other Tom, Dick, and Harry on the block. If I wanted to be like everyone else and their butt-uncle I would have bought a Civic.
The price I secured on my ES was far better than I could find on any of the other cars I was considering when I decided to buy a new car. For an excellent, excellent price I got a loaded, brand new car-- The best equipped car I've yet owned. That carried a lot of weight to me.
--------------------
In all of this discussion, I don't wish to sound like I'm completely ungrateful for the benefits of owning a Protege. I just get ticked off at some of its deficiencies, given that I feel the Pro could have been a stellar car instead of just a good one. Hey! Maybe it could be likened to automotive blue-balling! You know, you get so close to complete, all around greatness, but then Mazda just didn't quite get there.
June-21st-2002, 02:39 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Atco, NJ
Posts: 111
I'll have to come back and re-read all this.......
I'm trying to leave work and sit in that Fri afternoon rush of traffic
Before I go what do the others engines require as far as gas.
Manual on my P5 specifies about the lowest octain rating I can buy.
Detuned, Yes, but maybe for a reason.
Saves me $3 every fillup.
I'm trying to leave work and sit in that Fri afternoon rush of traffic
Before I go what do the others engines require as far as gas.
Manual on my P5 specifies about the lowest octain rating I can buy.
Detuned, Yes, but maybe for a reason.
Saves me $3 every fillup.
June-21st-2002, 02:47 PM
#25
Get in my belly!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: FL
Posts: 362
Originally posted by enormiss
I'll have to come back and re-read all this.......
I'm trying to leave work and sit in that Fri afternoon rush of traffic
Before I go what do the others engines require as far as gas.
Manual on my P5 specifies about the lowest octain rating I can buy.
Detuned, Yes, but maybe for a reason.
Saves me $3 every fillup.
I'll have to come back and re-read all this.......
I'm trying to leave work and sit in that Fri afternoon rush of traffic
Before I go what do the others engines require as far as gas.
Manual on my P5 specifies about the lowest octain rating I can buy.
Detuned, Yes, but maybe for a reason.
Saves me $3 every fillup.
Also did you know that the P5 will go almost 100 miles further then the Matrix on one tank of gas?
June-21st-2002, 02:48 PM
#26
Protege God
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 1,525
I think most of you are actually complaining about Mazda's head design and engine management rather than the entire engine. Especially when you are referring to the age of the design. The short blocks of all of the engines mentioned so far differ mostly based on whether the block is cast iron or aluminum, and sand cast or die cast. There are advantages and disadvantages to both designs, and both have been around for some time. Neither design really matters that much as far as stock, normally aspirated performance is concerned. The head design and engine management are where the majority of the HP and torque output are determined. Mazda does appear to be on the conserative side compared to Honda. Maybe Honda's experience with motorcycle engines gives them a bit of an advantage in the HP per liter department. Nissan, IMHO makes some of the best car engines around, and has done so for quite a while. Toyota was as conservative as Mazda until very recently when they decided there was enough money in it to make worth their while to compete with Honda for the more performance oriented car buyer. One large disadvantage Mazda has is being wholly controlled by Ford, requiring Ford's approval of expenditures, which Honda, Toyota and even Nissan don't suffer from.
Correction!
June-21st-2002, 03:02 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 401
If we to adjust price difference between premium and regular, then we can add 15% to mpg value of Protege.
That will put it to around 35 mpg. Corolla weighs 200 lb less(only advantage-adds to fuel economy), looks cannot even compete with Protege, handles worse, has rear drums and almost no aftermarket support. 5 mpg is a small price to pay for it.
Alex
That will put it to around 35 mpg. Corolla weighs 200 lb less(only advantage-adds to fuel economy), looks cannot even compete with Protege, handles worse, has rear drums and almost no aftermarket support. 5 mpg is a small price to pay for it.
Alex
June-21st-2002, 10:52 PM
#30
Protege Newbie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 43
VRIS... What it is, what it does
VRIS is Variable Resinance Intake System
I hate to see all the posts about what low technology the Mazda engine has compared to all the other manufaturers.
VRIS is NOT low tech, it uses short and long intake runners to smooth out the powerband, comparied to for example, a VTEC powerband which jumps up by leaps and bounds at a unusable RPM. A Honda motor without VTEC technology usually has a better HP to Torque ratio and more reliable.
VRIS is made for a smooth powerband, the power increase that is produced is not a drastic jump.
VRIS is more reliable than VTEC or VVTL-I because it is accually moving less parts.
Sorry for that short rant, I am the owner of a 94 Probe GT and I know all about VRIS.
I hate to see all the posts about what low technology the Mazda engine has compared to all the other manufaturers.
VRIS is NOT low tech, it uses short and long intake runners to smooth out the powerband, comparied to for example, a VTEC powerband which jumps up by leaps and bounds at a unusable RPM. A Honda motor without VTEC technology usually has a better HP to Torque ratio and more reliable.
VRIS is made for a smooth powerband, the power increase that is produced is not a drastic jump.
VRIS is more reliable than VTEC or VVTL-I because it is accually moving less parts.
Sorry for that short rant, I am the owner of a 94 Probe GT and I know all about VRIS.
Last edited by SilverProtege5; June-21st-2002 at 10:58 PM.