130hp Protege 2.0L FS-DE an overstated figure?
December-11th-2002, 07:05 PM
#62
Protege Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Roseville/St Paul, MN
Posts: 300
"It would be cool, though, to do an engine swap to the new 2.3L in the Mazda6. Not sure if it would fit, but in a year or so when some Mazda6s have been wrecked, it would be something to look into (probably cheaper than a turbo kit anyway)."
Don't think this will work as I thought the new 2.3's were based on the duratech design that will be found in the new foci in a year or two. Don't know if they're in anything here other then the 6 yet. Anyway makes me think about how SVT was able to put a 2.5 SVT Duratech into the focus The 3.0 isn't that much bigger and is more powerful, I wonder if this woudl be possible w/some serious mods. Hmmm. That woudl be some crazy hp and torque when compared to even the MSP and other pocket rocket cars.
Don't think this will work as I thought the new 2.3's were based on the duratech design that will be found in the new foci in a year or two. Don't know if they're in anything here other then the 6 yet. Anyway makes me think about how SVT was able to put a 2.5 SVT Duratech into the focus The 3.0 isn't that much bigger and is more powerful, I wonder if this woudl be possible w/some serious mods. Hmmm. That woudl be some crazy hp and torque when compared to even the MSP and other pocket rocket cars.
December-11th-2002, 10:44 PM
#63
WiCky=))
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 883
A 2.0L that makes 160lb/ft torque at 4000rpm. Wow.
When I discovered Mazda had such an engine. I thought the torque figures were misprinted. It's very impressive I think. And I thought the S2000 2.0L engine making 157lb/ft at a rather high rpm was impressive.
When I discovered Mazda had such an engine. I thought the torque figures were misprinted. It's very impressive I think. And I thought the S2000 2.0L engine making 157lb/ft at a rather high rpm was impressive.
December-12th-2002, 07:38 AM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 133
a lot of my friends have built crvtecs [2.0 dohc vtec] (the crv block 2.0 and a jdm b16a head along with a s3/j3 lsd tranny)...the engine needs to be built is the only problem but once it is done (~$4k total) it will give the user about 200hp and 180lb ft tq...piston speeds aren't that high even with a 7.5k rpm redline...the even better part is its a b series engine and has the largest aftermarket for sport/compact parts...one of my friends runs a slightly modd'd crvtec 1,900lb crx...next year i will get a ride in it and hopefully the chance to drive it (while he takes out my pr5)
sunbeam motorsports was contracted by Mazda to build its speedvision wc engines and sell them to all teams...making it affordable for that series (each car usually has > $200k investment)...it was also offering to sell engine parts to the public but just 2 months ago withdrew and now requires the purchaser to prove it will only be used for track racing purposes
sunbeam motorsports was contracted by Mazda to build its speedvision wc engines and sell them to all teams...making it affordable for that series (each car usually has > $200k investment)...it was also offering to sell engine parts to the public but just 2 months ago withdrew and now requires the purchaser to prove it will only be used for track racing purposes
December-12th-2002, 10:43 AM
#65
Passion for Zoom Zoom!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 372
I just find it interesting that there is all this FS bashing. I paid $14,300 for my ES in 1999. What could I reasonably expect from a car this price? It was 5hp shy of the Civic's top-of-the-line, sophisticated engine and had gobs more torque. It handled better than anything in its class. It was roomier, looked better, and just as reliable as anything in its class. For $14,300, there wasn't more bang-for-the-buck I could get. It has something the vast majority of cars on the road at any price lack: balance.
There's where Mazda's investment went into. Not a super-sophisticated engine. This is why the Protege wins comparison tests year after year. This is why the MP3 was compared against supercars in Road & Track's Ultimate Grip comparison. This is why the Protege has become regarded as a "poor man's BMW."
Case in point: the new Civic Si. It has a 2.0L DOHC VTEC with 160hp. Pretty impressive for a 2.0L, eh? What's not impressive is it's 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds. That's the same number for the MP3 with the lacking, unsophisticated, should-be-taken-out-back-and-shot FS-DE. Well, maybe the Si can outhandle the MP3. Yeah right. The MP3 will run circles around it (and not look like a mini-minivan doing it). Let's not even look at the Mazdaspeed Protege and it's 6.9 second 0-60 time and more aggressive suspension.
What would you rather have? Mazda spend their limited resources on making a really powerful 4-cylinder and put it in a car that feels and handles like a Kia? Or, Mazda spend their limited resources on making a car that is so balanced it can make up for any power deficits it may have? If you really wanted more performance out of a car, you need to step up to the plate and break out that check book and expect to pay more than $16k.
There's where Mazda's investment went into. Not a super-sophisticated engine. This is why the Protege wins comparison tests year after year. This is why the MP3 was compared against supercars in Road & Track's Ultimate Grip comparison. This is why the Protege has become regarded as a "poor man's BMW."
Case in point: the new Civic Si. It has a 2.0L DOHC VTEC with 160hp. Pretty impressive for a 2.0L, eh? What's not impressive is it's 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds. That's the same number for the MP3 with the lacking, unsophisticated, should-be-taken-out-back-and-shot FS-DE. Well, maybe the Si can outhandle the MP3. Yeah right. The MP3 will run circles around it (and not look like a mini-minivan doing it). Let's not even look at the Mazdaspeed Protege and it's 6.9 second 0-60 time and more aggressive suspension.
What would you rather have? Mazda spend their limited resources on making a really powerful 4-cylinder and put it in a car that feels and handles like a Kia? Or, Mazda spend their limited resources on making a car that is so balanced it can make up for any power deficits it may have? If you really wanted more performance out of a car, you need to step up to the plate and break out that check book and expect to pay more than $16k.
December-13th-2002, 06:23 AM
#66
Protege Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 31
If this DOES turn out to be deception, I wonder what Mazda's course of action will be. Hyundai issued a public apology and offered extended warranties to those who owned cars whose horsepower they were lied to about. If Mazda is exposed, what will they do, I wonder? This would be really bad timing for a company that's trying to turn itself around after stagnant, difficult times.
Might you comment on comparing the P5 engine with the base 2.0l VW Golf engine? I would particularly enjoy your comments regarding the fact that both engines have cast iron blocks.
As for the VW Passat, for the same money you can get a Maxima with the VQ. Want to compare the 1.8t, or V6 Passat for that matter, with the Nissan VQ?
You make your choice and pay your money. Some people prefer a bulletproof cast iron block in their 4 cylinder and will give up the 70 lbs or so of weight savings achieved with an aluminum block (note that Nissan only saved 105 lbs when they went to the aluminum block V6 vs the older cast iron block V6 and this was with a ton of effort to reduce weight in every way possible). The Mazda 4 cylinder is one tough engine. It's a reasonable compromise IMHO.
The cheapest performace weight savings the P5 could get is an aluminum hood, but with the way kids like sitting on hoods...
Might you comment on comparing the P5 engine with the base 2.0l VW Golf engine? I would particularly enjoy your comments regarding the fact that both engines have cast iron blocks.
As for the VW Passat, for the same money you can get a Maxima with the VQ. Want to compare the 1.8t, or V6 Passat for that matter, with the Nissan VQ?
You make your choice and pay your money. Some people prefer a bulletproof cast iron block in their 4 cylinder and will give up the 70 lbs or so of weight savings achieved with an aluminum block (note that Nissan only saved 105 lbs when they went to the aluminum block V6 vs the older cast iron block V6 and this was with a ton of effort to reduce weight in every way possible). The Mazda 4 cylinder is one tough engine. It's a reasonable compromise IMHO.
The cheapest performace weight savings the P5 could get is an aluminum hood, but with the way kids like sitting on hoods...
Last edited by ex_MGB; December-13th-2002 at 06:30 AM.
December-13th-2002, 12:20 PM
#67
Protege Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 460
Originally posted by ex_MGB
(note that Nissan only saved 105 lbs when they went to the aluminum block V6 vs the older cast iron block V6 and this was with a ton of effort to reduce weight in every way possible).
(note that Nissan only saved 105 lbs when they went to the aluminum block V6 vs the older cast iron block V6 and this was with a ton of effort to reduce weight in every way possible).
December-13th-2002, 12:55 PM
#68
Protegé Master
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 194
Originally posted by jstand6
I just find it interesting that there is all this FS bashing. I paid $14,300 for my ES in 1999. What could I reasonably expect from a car this price? It was 5hp shy of the Civic's top-of-the-line, sophisticated engine and had gobs more torque. It handled better than anything in its class. It was roomier, looked better, and just as reliable as anything in its class. For $14,300, there wasn't more bang-for-the-buck I could get. It has something the vast majority of cars on the road at any price lack: balance.
There's where Mazda's investment went into. Not a super-sophisticated engine. This is why the Protege wins comparison tests year after year. This is why the MP3 was compared against supercars in Road & Track's Ultimate Grip comparison. This is why the Protege has become regarded as a "poor man's BMW."
Case in point: the new Civic Si. It has a 2.0L DOHC VTEC with 160hp. Pretty impressive for a 2.0L, eh? What's not impressive is it's 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds. That's the same number for the MP3 with the lacking, unsophisticated, should-be-taken-out-back-and-shot FS-DE. Well, maybe the Si can outhandle the MP3. Yeah right. The MP3 will run circles around it (and not look like a mini-minivan doing it). Let's not even look at the Mazdaspeed Protege and it's 6.9 second 0-60 time and more aggressive suspension.
What would you rather have? Mazda spend their limited resources on making a really powerful 4-cylinder and put it in a car that feels and handles like a Kia? Or, Mazda spend their limited resources on making a car that is so balanced it can make up for any power deficits it may have? If you really wanted more performance out of a car, you need to step up to the plate and break out that check book and expect to pay more than $16k.
I just find it interesting that there is all this FS bashing. I paid $14,300 for my ES in 1999. What could I reasonably expect from a car this price? It was 5hp shy of the Civic's top-of-the-line, sophisticated engine and had gobs more torque. It handled better than anything in its class. It was roomier, looked better, and just as reliable as anything in its class. For $14,300, there wasn't more bang-for-the-buck I could get. It has something the vast majority of cars on the road at any price lack: balance.
There's where Mazda's investment went into. Not a super-sophisticated engine. This is why the Protege wins comparison tests year after year. This is why the MP3 was compared against supercars in Road & Track's Ultimate Grip comparison. This is why the Protege has become regarded as a "poor man's BMW."
Case in point: the new Civic Si. It has a 2.0L DOHC VTEC with 160hp. Pretty impressive for a 2.0L, eh? What's not impressive is it's 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds. That's the same number for the MP3 with the lacking, unsophisticated, should-be-taken-out-back-and-shot FS-DE. Well, maybe the Si can outhandle the MP3. Yeah right. The MP3 will run circles around it (and not look like a mini-minivan doing it). Let's not even look at the Mazdaspeed Protege and it's 6.9 second 0-60 time and more aggressive suspension.
What would you rather have? Mazda spend their limited resources on making a really powerful 4-cylinder and put it in a car that feels and handles like a Kia? Or, Mazda spend their limited resources on making a car that is so balanced it can make up for any power deficits it may have? If you really wanted more performance out of a car, you need to step up to the plate and break out that check book and expect to pay more than $16k.
December-13th-2002, 02:00 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 133
Originally posted by jstand6
I just find it interesting that there is all this FS bashing. I paid $14,300 for my ES in 1999. What could I reasonably expect from a car this price? It was 5hp shy of the Civic's top-of-the-line, sophisticated engine and had gobs more torque. It handled better than anything in its class. It was roomier, looked better, and just as reliable as anything in its class. For $14,300, there wasn't more bang-for-the-buck I could get. It has something the vast majority of cars on the road at any price lack: balance.
There's where Mazda's investment went into. Not a super-sophisticated engine. This is why the Protege wins comparison tests year after year. This is why the MP3 was compared against supercars in Road & Track's Ultimate Grip comparison. This is why the Protege has become regarded as a "poor man's BMW."
Case in point: the new Civic Si. It has a 2.0L DOHC VTEC with 160hp. Pretty impressive for a 2.0L, eh? What's not impressive is it's 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds. That's the same number for the MP3 with the lacking, unsophisticated, should-be-taken-out-back-and-shot FS-DE. Well, maybe the Si can outhandle the MP3. Yeah right. The MP3 will run circles around it (and not look like a mini-minivan doing it). Let's not even look at the Mazdaspeed Protege and it's 6.9 second 0-60 time and more aggressive suspension.
What would you rather have? Mazda spend their limited resources on making a really powerful 4-cylinder and put it in a car that feels and handles like a Kia? Or, Mazda spend their limited resources on making a car that is so balanced it can make up for any power deficits it may have? If you really wanted more performance out of a car, you need to step up to the plate and break out that check book and expect to pay more than $16k.
I just find it interesting that there is all this FS bashing. I paid $14,300 for my ES in 1999. What could I reasonably expect from a car this price? It was 5hp shy of the Civic's top-of-the-line, sophisticated engine and had gobs more torque. It handled better than anything in its class. It was roomier, looked better, and just as reliable as anything in its class. For $14,300, there wasn't more bang-for-the-buck I could get. It has something the vast majority of cars on the road at any price lack: balance.
There's where Mazda's investment went into. Not a super-sophisticated engine. This is why the Protege wins comparison tests year after year. This is why the MP3 was compared against supercars in Road & Track's Ultimate Grip comparison. This is why the Protege has become regarded as a "poor man's BMW."
Case in point: the new Civic Si. It has a 2.0L DOHC VTEC with 160hp. Pretty impressive for a 2.0L, eh? What's not impressive is it's 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds. That's the same number for the MP3 with the lacking, unsophisticated, should-be-taken-out-back-and-shot FS-DE. Well, maybe the Si can outhandle the MP3. Yeah right. The MP3 will run circles around it (and not look like a mini-minivan doing it). Let's not even look at the Mazdaspeed Protege and it's 6.9 second 0-60 time and more aggressive suspension.
What would you rather have? Mazda spend their limited resources on making a really powerful 4-cylinder and put it in a car that feels and handles like a Kia? Or, Mazda spend their limited resources on making a car that is so balanced it can make up for any power deficits it may have? If you really wanted more performance out of a car, you need to step up to the plate and break out that check book and expect to pay more than $16k.
i choose my pr5 over the civic si b/c of handling...however, the EM civic si had a much, much better engine than the pr5 but the civic si was a heavy car with crappy tires...i've always wanted honda to bring over the ctr so we can get a real taste of what that chassis is capable of instead of a mini-minivan flavor we have here
June-18th-2004, 05:20 PM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
For one thing, there's a stronger sense of urgency when the driver tramps on the throttle. Mazda substituted a 2.0-liter twin-cam 16-valve four, borrowed from the mid-size 626-sedan parts bin, for the previous 1.8-liter engine, increasing horsepower from 122 to 130 in the process. But that's a little deceptive. Those eight additional ponies are hitched to a buggy that's about 100 pounds heavier, so rated horsepower to listed weight is all but unchanged: 20.8 pounds per horsepower for the 2000 ES and 20.3 for the 2001.
http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?...&page_number=1
June-18th-2004, 05:43 PM
#71
Awesome Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 3,186
As for the article and what's been stated here I can only say--this is exactly why I bought the car.
June-18th-2004, 10:22 PM
#72
Cone Dancer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Central Calif
Posts: 279
Perhaps the larger drive train loss is a consequence of Mazda's very durable drivetrains. Maybe it's the price you/we pay for beefy parts and long trouble free lives of our cars. The Protege is a tad heavier than other similar sized cars. I dunno, could be.
June-19th-2004, 08:39 AM
#73
Moderator/ Pocket Tuner
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,150
Are you serious?? Mazda does NOT have a reputation for having durable drivetrains....quite the opposite...that is the concern of most individuals on here that get turbo's...."how do i keep from breaking my tranny?"
June-19th-2004, 09:36 AM
#74
Protege Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 460
Any car with a turbo upgrade would require a tranny upgrade among other things. I agree though< Im not aware of any reputation for Mazda having stout drivetrins. I saw something on TV about a certain racing class and the Mazda team was the only team that had to have a spare engine to make it through the race. This was because the mods done to the factory engine made it too unreliable to handle the additional power output. The other manufactures engines were just fine with the allowed mods.