GT vs Mazda3, Which is a better performer? Options

[sxc_beast]

I dont take much part in the 6gc forums but spend time mostly viewing other peoples rides on this site..
So im keen on ur opinions on which car has better straight line performance, the Celi GT or the Mazda3 2.0l.. im curious because my friend has one and the specs are pretty similar.
I think maybe my celi would have a slight edge with more low end torque, but the age difference in the cars might make a bit of a difference as well. Curious to know what u guys might think.. if u even care

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

i had a mx3 with a v6 stick

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

it will blow the celi out

[BlackSTX]

I think he means the new Mazda3's. I couldn't see the 2.0 being much faster. I'd look at the weight difference as the difference maker.

[darksecret]

I'm confident that the Celica would take the Mazda 3, the peak torque is low on the Mazda but it's not enough to help it, the peak horsepower probably will never be seen since it is made right on the redline where the Celicas is about a thousand less than redline. IMO age makes a difference but a new Celica GT would probably give the 2.3 Litre version a good run if the 2.3 acts the same way as the Honda KA20 in the Civic Si which doesn't seem to have as much power as the numbers claim, I might go Mazda 3 hunting this weekend and see how quick they are.

[pokemeintheeye]

it will blow the celi out
[right][snapback]294386[/snapback][/right]

From what I've heard. Those V6 MX3 aint nothing to brag about. The V6 is too small and weak to even compare. Thats just what I've heard though.

Hope you don't take it personal. I didn't mean it that way. I'll try and look up the specs.


EDIT: ...This is what I found...
1.8L V6 130 hp gas Standard

Number of cylinders: 6

Number of valves: 24

Compression Ratio: 9.2

Camshaft: Double overhead cam (DOHC)

Horsepower: 130 hp @ 6500 rpm

Torque: 115 ft-lbs @ 4500 rpm


This post has been edited by pokemeintheeye: Jun 2, 2005 - 4:12 PM

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

belive me. by at least 3 seconds.. i was doing a whopping 18.6.. the mx was doin 15's

[pokemeintheeye]

I'm sorry. I'd have to see it to believe it. The only thing the car has going for it is a V6 engine. It only has 130 hp and 115 lbs/ft of torque. Sure the car is light weighing at 2541 lbs. But a liftback GT only weighs bout 41 lbs more? And then theres the coupe that weighs less. If you're hitting 18's with a GT Celica then I really don't know what to say to you. I can see an ST doing that, but not a GT. I don't see how the MX3 could be any faster than a base model Civic.

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

its an auto ST. not a manual GT

[pokemeintheeye]

Ok. Then yeah, the ST auto wouldn't be much faster.

[macavely]

first hand exprience with this my friend Rosa's 3... 3 is better performer the the GT ... flat out .. have driving the car.. so i know for sure..

This post has been edited by macavely: Jun 3, 2005 - 4:05 AM

[darksecret]

130 hp V6, 1.8 Litre V6, man thats sad, that looks like the 2.4 Litre version mac if it is yeah it would probably beat the stock GT, i'm going to hunt one down tonight I want to find out what they can do, 2.0 Litre I know I would be able to take power is to low and curb weight is to high, I want to run the 2.3 to make things a little more fair.

[wind]

it would be close.....

look at the stats:

Mazda3 2.0 L :

148 hp @ 6500 rpm
135 torque @ 4500 rpm

Celica GT 2.2 L :

135 hp @ 5200 rpm
142 @ 4400 rpm

but i think the mazda 3 would win due to the fact that it wont die after 6000 rpm

This post has been edited by wind: Jun 4, 2005 - 4:01 PM

[blu94gt]

ok all you guys are talking about completeyl different cars. the NEW Mazda3 will way outdo a Celica like ours, but our Celicas would definitely be with one of the older Mazda MX-3s I looked into an MX-3 and the 1.8 v-6 is really tiny, I kinda liked it though. Would have been an interesting project. But yeah, new Mazda3 definitely faster I'd say, but I don't know the exact specs

[sxc_beast]

Ok, these are the Australian specs i have found for the Mazda 3 on mazda.com.au.

Mazda3 Sedan 2.0L Specs:

Max Power: 104kw@6500rpm (104kw = 139.5Hp)
Max Torque: 181Nm@4500rpm (181Nm = 133.5 lb/ft)
Kerb Weight: 1,195-1,206kg (1200kg = 2640 pounds!) lighter you say? don't think so

Performance figures, according to Mazda's internal testing, for 0-100km/h is 9.0 seconds for 2.0-litre manual models. (That's its 0 - 60mph time)

The Celica GT 0-60mph takes 8.5 secs.

On paper, the Celi actually outdoes the Mazda 3 but sitting in the passenger seat of it, it does feel like its quick. Does it put power to the wheels better?

[Kadett]

This is why i love the fact i have a Euro GT. Mazda 3 = bye bye

[95celgt]

i have a 2.0 mazda3, its faster foing straight, thats for sure, but the celica has better handling imo.

[SlowCelica94]

car always feel faster in the passenger seat. Just race him and him out.

[sxc_beast]

i have a 2.0 mazda3, its faster foing straight, thats for sure, but the celica has better handling imo.
[right][snapback]295332[/snapback][/right]

convertibles are heavier though..

Yeah im gonna have to have a go and settle this.

[darksecret]

ok all you guys are talking about completeyl different cars.  the NEW Mazda3 will way outdo a Celica like ours, but our Celicas would definitely be with one of the older Mazda MX-3s  I looked into an MX-3 and the 1.8 v-6 is really tiny, I kinda liked it though.  Would have been an interesting project.  But yeah, new Mazda3 definitely faster I'd say, but I don't know the exact specs
[right][snapback]295099[/snapback][/right]

These specs are from a 2.0L Mazda3 taken from the Mazda website. We aren't talking about the MX-3. Alright I caught a blue Mazda3 this weekend, I killed it, but a stock GT it would be up to the drivers.

[BlackSTX]

Alright I caught a blue Mazda3 this weekend, I killed it, but a stock GT it would be up to the drivers.
[right][snapback]295417[/snapback][/right]

Is your car not stock?

[darksecret]

No, not much more than stock, more than my profile says though.

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

u are compareing a 10 yr old car with a 2003. remember that too ( no mods)

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

check both 1/4 mile times. i bet that mazda 3 is quicker.. and why are u comparing the 2 in the first place? our cars are slow.... yes they are! lol slow

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

ps: the mazda 3 is a a P.O.S. we are slower then constipated Sh!T... yes we are!!!

[sxc_beast]

Because i reckon i can win. The celi would be quicker off the line for sure, and the engines are pretty similar powerwise so i think i can stay ahead..

I got a 2.25 exhaust (not much difference), and new tyres.

And yes i do realise celis r slow but, i still wanna be able to chop a new car.

This post has been edited by sxc_beast: Jun 7, 2005 - 2:48 AM

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

i must admit, our cars are very quick off the line.. veryi take everyone i raced so far off the line. .. acura legend, honda civics, rsx, prelude.

[darksecret]

I checked car and driver but all they had was the test from the 2.3L which showed a quarter mile of 16.0, from the specs the stock GT would fall just short of the 2.3L and the GT would kill a 2.3 on a roll 30-50 in 11.7, plus it tops out at 118 and after 80 it just gives up where the Celica seems strong until 100. We should be looking at the 2.3L as some competetion because they mess up one time it's over.

[sxc_beast]

Yeah, i was slightly quicker than a wrx off the lights but by the time i clicked into third he was surging ahead.. too bad the celi doesnt have more grunt in the higher rpms.

Also slightly off the subject, is a 3sge with vvt-i worth a swap from the 5sfe? or would turbo be a better option - performance and durability wise.

[sxc_beast]

I checked car and driver but all they had was the test from the 2.3L which showed a quarter mile of 16.0, from the specs the stock GT would fall just short of the 2.3L and the GT would kill a 2.3 on a roll 30-50 in 11.7, plus it tops out at 118 and after 80 it just gives up where the Celica seems strong until 100. We should be looking at the 2.3L as some competetion because they mess up one time it's over.
[right][snapback]295874[/snapback][/right]

Sweet, so the GT should have no problems agaisnt a 2.0L.. that makes me happy

[darksecret]

On paper yes the GT would beat a Mazda 3 but on the strip, street or whatever you'll run on it won't be a major difference, i'm running with Si's and the 2.3L gave me a good run from a light and we didn't go a quarter so in your case if you get a good run you should beat the 3 but if you mess up it might be over and don't look for any 3 or 4 car lengths, what I consider killing a car is when my rear bumper is past their front bumper and that is about where I was when we let off. Also consider that those specs for the test are from professional drivers on a closed course meaning that the average person might see a second slower in the quarter. There is a good chance you'll win but don't get nervous or in a hurry or you'll mess up.

[SoundSlut_dotcom]

yea i get roasted in 3rd all the time..... we have to do something about that lol