Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
siegen

'07 GTI, Si, and MazdaSpeed 3 dyno tests.

Recommended Posts

They weren't too happy with the 3, the power delivery is apparently not very linear (look at the dyno chart), despite the large peak numbers. If you aren't between 3,000rpms and 5,500 rpms, there is considerably less TQ being made.

Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, yay, GTI wins for being the most powerful one with a linear delivery.

All reports I've read indicate that the Mazda Mazdaspeed Mazda3 (or is it Mazda Mazda3 Mazdaspeed?) has too much power for its own good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Mazda3 still spanks the civic.  so does the cobalt, BTW.  WRX does also.

204650[/snapback]

You really are one-track minded aren't you?

The Mazda3 makes big peak TQ and HP numbers, but has a poor powerband. It will be fast in a straight line, but the GTI would probably beat it around the track. Where the 3 keeps falling out of its powerband, the GTI will pull strong. The Civic Si has the nicest looking powerband and makes 85% of its peak TQ from 2k to 8k rpms, if it only had .2L or .4L more displacement...

The Civic's dyno chart is hilarious. It doesn't get to more than 100HP before 4500rpm, and it's at less than 130HP at 5700rpm.

204652[/snapback]

Also remember the Civic Si weighs 250-400 lbs less than these other two. The Ariel Atom uses an almost identical engine out of the Civic Type R and it isn't slow by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also remember the Civic Si weighs 250-400 lbs less than these other two. The Ariel Atom uses an almost identical engine out of the Civic Type R and it isn't slow by any means.

204657[/snapback]

Same series, not the exact same engine. The Type-R engine is a K20Z1, and the Si a K20Z3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mazda3 makes big peak TQ and HP numbers, but has a poor powerband. It will be fast in a straight line, but the GTI would probably beat it around the track. Where the 3 keeps falling out of its powerband, the GTI will pull strong. The Civic Si has the nicest looking powerband and makes 85% of its peak TQ from 2k to 8k rpms, if it only had .2L or .4L more displacement...

Also remember the Civic Si weighs 250-400 lbs less than these other two. The Ariel Atom uses an almost identical engine out of the Civic Type R and it isn't slow by any means.

204657[/snapback]

How is it the nicest? It has no power until you get to 6k rpm. That's nice for daily driving?

At 3.5k rpm, you're making 160HP in the 3. 160HP doesn't come until after 6200rpm in the Si.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh since the Si is a 4cyl and I'm used to a dyno chart that looks something like this:

Posted Image

I actually didn't realize the torque curve was that flat, but I do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same series, not the exact same engine. The Type-R engine is a K20Z1, and the Si a K20Z3.

204659[/snapback]

That's why I said almost identical.

How is it the nicest? It has no power until you get to 6k rpm. That's nice for daily driving?

It is the most flat, which is ideal. It just lacks in displacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the most flat, which is ideal. It just lacks in displacement.

204689[/snapback]

The torque is pretty flat, but the HP is not. When you say "powerband" it sounds more like HP than torque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To get the advertised horsepower out of the Civic, rev the pee out of it, then get 17 mpg... from "the most fuel efficient car company in America". <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The torque is pretty flat, but the HP is not. When you say "powerband" it sounds more like HP than torque.

204690[/snapback]

Powerband referes to the TQ curve as that shows what work the engine is actually doing. The HP curve is derived from the TQ curve (hp = tq * rpm / 5252) and isn't a real number that your car produces (so to speak) but more of a helper equation designed to show how a car accelerates :scratchchin: . Having a flat TQ curve means acceleration increases at a constant rate and doesn't drop off or surge. It is very important for a race car as sudden changes in the TQ curve (dips or surges) can cause instability while accelerating. It's funny cause Honda generally tunes their vtec engines to have a slightly abrupt vtec crossover, which would actually be bad on a race track (you can see the abrupt crossover on the Civic Si's dyno in the article). They do it though as it feels cool I guess for all the "Vtec Yo!" kids. <_<

The flat TQ curve, among other things, in almost all Honda vtec engines is why every review you read of them talks about how they love to rev and rev easily. It's because the TQ doesn't drop off like most N/A (naturally aspirated) 4cyl engines do around 5k-5.5k rpms.

I'm not saying the GTI has a bad TQ curve though, just the 3. The GTI's is pretty good, even though the TQ does drop off steadily, it doesn't suddenly come on and then drop off abruptly like the 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't too happy with the 3, the power delivery is apparently not very linear (look at the dyno chart), despite the large peak numbers. If you aren't between 3,000rpms and 5,500 rpms, there is considerably less TQ being made.

Full Article

204431[/snapback]

The 3 hits the Civics peak torque number at around 2200rpms, and doesn't fall below that until 6000 rpms.

In the rpm range you mentioned, the 3 is nearly 100 ft lbs higher than the Civics peak torque the whole time.

How is that considerably less?

Edited by CaddyXLR-V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 hits the Civics peak torque number at around 2200rpms, and doesn't fall below that until 6000 rpms.

In the rpm range you mentioned, the 3 is nearly 100 ft lbs higher than the Civics peak torque the whole time.

How is that considerably less?

204818[/snapback]

I think he meant when the 3 is at low or high RPMs it makes significantly less torque than when it is in the mid RPMs. I don't think he was comparing it to the absolute torque numbers of the Civic.

This is interesting though. It might explain why the RDX is so much faster than the CX7 in spite of the similar peak numbers.

The other thing that struck me was just how smooth the civic line is compared to the other cars. You always hear how Honda engines are "smooth"... interesting to actually see it shown quantitatively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting though.  It might explain why the RDX is so much faster than the CX7 in spite of the similar peak numbers.

204991[/snapback]

The RDX is a little better. It doesn't drop off as much in the high end. the TOV did a dyno test on it, and posted the chart (you can see it here). I overlaid its torque curve onto the Mazda dyno below (light green line is RDX TQ). Keep in mind the RDX's power was being fed through an automatic while the Mazdaspeed through a manual, so the numbers will be lower on the RDX. The dark green line should be approximately what the RDX would do with a manual transmission (since they both have the same peak TQ number at the crank, the losses would hopefully be about the same).

Looking at the torque curve you can see it doesn't drop off as much. Also, the reason it looks like the power comes on so late is because I don't think they went WOT until 2.5k to 3.0k rpms where-as the testers doing the Madza dyno stomped on it much sooner. I have a feeling the RDX has better low end TQ as well, since Acura focused a lot on that and the i-vtec would help optimize both ends of the rev range.

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RDX is a little better. It doesn't drop off as much in the high end. the TOV did a dyno test on it, and posted the chart (you can see it here). I overlaid its torque curve onto the Mazda dyno below (light green line is RDX TQ). Keep in mind the RDX's power was being fed through an automatic while the Mazdaspeed through a manual, so the numbers will be lower on the RDX. The dark green line should be approximately what the RDX would do with a manual transmission (since they both have the same peak TQ number at the crank, the losses would hopefully be about the same).

Looking at the torque curve you can see it doesn't drop off as much. Also, the reason it looks like the power comes on so late is because I don't think they went WOT until 2.5k to 3.0k rpms where-as the testers doing the Madza dyno stomped on it much sooner. I have a feeling the RDX has better low end TQ as well, since Acura focused a lot on that and the i-vtec would help optimize both ends of the rev range.

Posted Image

204998[/snapback]

How does a manual transmission gain 25HP? Automatics typically lose 15-20% vs. crank while manuals typically lose 10-15% vs. crank (usually about a 5% difference depending on the model).

In regards to the test not being at WOT: Why does it matter? Doesn't the car make the same HP at 2500 RPM whether it's at WOT or whether it's just normal acceleration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the this and thats, Honda did a great job getting that flat of a torque curve. It is a NA engine.........did anyone read.......even the author said you cant touch forced induction for its torque. While Im an advocate for low RPM torque over highrpm HP that we rarely use on the street, the extreme RPM and HP of that Honda must be extremely stimulating when drivin in anger and most likely gets the job done. This is the clientel that Honda attracts with their Vtec. So I wouldnt beat it down too bad. How would the NA ecotec or VW stack up ?

That said its too bad they did not include the SC SS Cobalt in this. That would be good for us to visually see.

That said :rolleyes: I can already see that "other car company" already seems to steal the show and recieve credit for the DI twin scroll Ecotec in the media.........great..........tic toc tic toc tic toc...... Pontiac

Finally I loved this one

the Civic Si's drive-by-wire throttle is so slow to respond that you can literally press the throttle to the floor and release it without any response.

Something the 3900 also does but yet is denied by other owners.....just me again flying around in the twilight zone...........

Great job VW !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, yay, GTI wins for being the most powerful one with a linear delivery.

All reports I've read indicate that the Mazda Mazdaspeed Mazda3 (or is it Mazda Mazda3 Mazdaspeed?) has too much power for its own good.

204655[/snapback]

so lay off the throttle a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really are one-track minded aren't you?

The Mazda3 makes big peak TQ and HP numbers, but has a poor powerband. It will be fast in a straight line, but the GTI would probably beat it around the track. Where the 3 keeps falling out of its powerband, the GTI will pull strong. The Civic Si has the nicest looking powerband and makes 85% of its peak TQ from 2k to 8k rpms, if it only had .2L or .4L more displacement...

Also remember the Civic Si weighs 250-400 lbs less than these other two. The Ariel Atom uses an almost identical engine out of the Civic Type R and it isn't slow by any means.

204657[/snapback]

yeah of course the civic makes 85% pk tq, it only makes what, 130 max? I can generate that much torque myself stirring a pot of spaghetti sauce.

yeah the civic weighs less, its a less useful car. the mazda3 spanks the civic so bad its not even funny. to suggest the civic's engine is the 8th wonder in the ariel atom is like me saying a corvette engine in a cobalt is relevant.

Is honda kool aid on tap at the fountain outlet at the 7-11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the test not being at WOT: Why does it matter? Doesn't the car make the same HP at 2500 RPM whether it's at WOT or whether it's just normal acceleration?

205002[/snapback]

i think it has to do with air/ fuel and if it's calibrated right or not...if your putting in tons more gas than should be in the combustion chamber it won't acceralte as well as if its close to WOT v. just WOT... wasting gas and therefor energy if all of it can't be combusted well.

make sense?

i only floor it if i want to screech my tires... other wise a progress way to push the throttle should be better for 0-60 times... i would guess it also can throw off HP numbers if less fuel could produce more power lower in the rpms.. say <3000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a manual transmission gain 25HP? Automatics typically lose 15-20% vs. crank while manuals typically lose 10-15% vs. crank (usually about a 5% difference depending on the model).

205002[/snapback]

25hp may be a little much, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is close. The torque converter robs quite a bit of power.

I think the bigger thing we're missing is that the Mazdaspeed 3 engine is rated to 263hp / 280tq at the crank by Mazda, yet this test shows 216hp / 245tq at the wheels. A bit overrated there Mazda?? :AH-HA_wink:

I wouldn't be surprised if the CX-7 engine is a bit overrated as well, which may also be why it is slower than the RDX.

So not only does the Mazda have a cruddy tq curve, but it is overrated as well. For comparison, the Civic Si is rated to 197hp / 139tq by Honda, and made 180hp / 134tq at the wheels.

I'm not trying to say the Civic Si is a faster car than the Mazdaspeed 3. I'm just ragging on the Mazda. Wasn't the RX8 also overrated quite a lot?

yeah the civic weighs less, its a less useful car.

205055[/snapback]

That must mean the Corvette is a less useful car than the 350z, since it weighs less. Right? :AH-HA_wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bigger thing we're missing is that the Mazdaspeed 3 engine is rated to 263hp / 280tq at the crank by Mazda, yet this test shows 216hp / 245tq at the wheels. A bit overrated there Mazda??  :AH-HA_wink:

205149[/snapback]

216/245 at the wheels is a 18% drop and 12% drop respectively, I wouldn't call that overrated. Isn't it SAE certified anyways?

Yes the RX-8 was overrated a ton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

216/245 at the wheels is a 18% drop and 12% drop respectively, I wouldn't call that overrated. Isn't it SAE certified anyways?

Yes the RX-8 was overrated a ton.

205163[/snapback]

That is a pretty hefty drop. Compare it to the GTI which only lost 11% hp and 7% tq and the Si which only lost 9% hp and 4% tq.

Also compare it to the RDX dyno I posted. They ran the RDX on a 2 wheel roller dyno just like the one in the Automag test. Not quite sure about elevation or humidity though. The RDX engine is rated at 240/260 and did a 211/227 through an automatic transmission. The Mazda is rated to 263/280 and did a 216/245 through a manual transmission. Somethings not right here <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a pretty hefty drop. Compare it to the GTI which only lost 11% hp and 7% tq and the Si which only lost 9% hp and 4% tq.

The Mazda is rated to 263/280 and did a 216/245 through a manual transmission. Somethings not right here  <_<

205175[/snapback]

Naturally, different transmissions sap different amounts of power. I couldn't seem to find it in the article, but doesn't the GTI have a DSG transmission?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×