under powered cars ( Mazda )

[Casino]

Is it just me or does Mazda make under powered cars, i mean the Miata isnt all that fast, the new rx-8 doesnt have as much hp as it was supposed to. the protege isnt a dast vehicle, but mazda cars seem to cost the same or more then others, but lack the HP ? <p>maybe im just crazy but the only car that comes to mind when i liek of mazda and fast is the rx-7

[curtklze]

HONDA makes the most uder powered cars ever.<p>The old SIR had only 170 HP when they had a 225 H.P. 2.2L in the prelude that would fit in the civic. <p>no torque = hondas suck.

[killerpickle]

would you consider the s2000 underpower because it has no torque? Or would 0-60 in less than 6 seconds be acceptable?

[Nd4SpdSe]

the rx-8 can do it under 6 sec too

[EBUCKS]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> would you consider the s2000 underpower because it has no torque? Or would 0-60 in less than 6 seconds be acceptable? <hr></blockquote> <p>one

[killerpickle]

ebucks maybe you should actually post the correct info on the s2000. oh like maybe...
Engine Specifications
2.0L 240 hp I4 (read that right? 2.0 L of NA Power pruducting oh....240hp @ 8300 RPM
and oh... 153 @ 7500RPM
Turbo/Supercharger no (that means na)
Compression Ratio 11.0<p>now amercican muscle doesn't seem so impressive.

[Sonicxtacy02]

when 1970's v8 pushrod technology sits in a car weighing 2 as much and taking seconds off 1/4 times, i'd say thats still impressive. As much as i dislike domestics, please dont attempt to compare a torqueless s2 with "american muscle"

[guyaverage]

What exactly do you guys consider "power"? Torque? Or horsepower? 0-60 times? If you are talking about an "underpowered" car, what are you talking about? That it isnt fast, or that it just doesnt "feel" fast around town, even though it goes 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, screaming to 8000 rpm...? Just because an engine has a higher HP number than ft.lbs. of torque doesnt make it "underpowered". Give a Japanese car company 3 or 4 liters of engine to work with and compare that to your typical American 3-4 liter engine and the "American Muscle" argument falls on its face. Gm and Ford getting 275+ Hp out of 4.6, 5.0 and 5.7 liter engines doesnt impress me at all. I wouldnt expect any less from ANY car maker using engines that big. Have you seen the Hp/torque numbers Toyota and Nissan are pulling out of their v6's and v8's? Go drive a Lexus or Infiniti, and tell us they are underpowered.<p>Japan has a different tax system for cars, different roads, and different driving conditions that America (and elsewhere). They get their power by reving the engine (high HP/lower torque, at high revs) compared to American engines (high torque @ low rpms). Using your logic, I guess Indy cars are "underpowered" because their relatively small v8's have to rev to 10,000 rpm to achieve max horsepower...

[phr34k]

actually i think power is my jet fighter sitting in my back yard. it has a nice nuke strapped on to it NOW THATS POWER MUHAHAHAHAHA<p>useless topic

[Nd4SpdSe]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MX-3.com:
With Mazda you pay for quality.<hr></blockquote><p>Damn straight! My '92 Mx-3 and parents '90 626 prove that!<p>BTW, if you havent noticed, KLZE's produce only 40hp less but ~20ft/lb more of torque than an s2000<p>[ September 18, 2003: Message edited by: Nd4SpdSe ]</p>

[mx3TT]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by killerpickle:
ebucks maybe you should actually post the correct info on the s2000. oh like maybe...
Engine Specifications
2.0L 240 hp I4 (read that right? 2.0 L of NA Power pruducting oh....240hp @ 8300 RPM
and oh... 153 @ 7500RPM
Turbo/Supercharger no (that means na)
Compression Ratio 11.0<p>now amercican muscle doesn't seem so impressive.<hr></blockquote><p>You call those numbers for the s2000 impressive? How much torque does it have? Nothing close to the HP number. If those arent close its wont be as fast as you think. Torque makes a huge difference. And yes, Hondas are very under powered because they have no torque. Like I have said before, I would buy a honda....motorcycle, mower or quads. They dont make good power in their car engines. Thats just the way it is.
<p>And yes, American Muscle is always impressive. Their engines are restricted ALOT. They take very little mods to free up a lot of horsepower, believe me.<p>[ September 18, 2003: Message edited by: mx3TT ]</p>

[killerpickle]

chris, do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you think that it is not impressive engineering to get 120 hp per litre on a NA engine? Anyone dare to try and find an example of more hp per litre? Im not responding any further in this thread. I can't stand ignorant people that say "oh honda sucks", for no other reason that - ignorance.

[mx3TT]

I love when people call me ignorant.

[xXx_OTEP_xXx]

eh, my mom's '00 V6 Grand Am Sedan has a 0-60 of 6 secs also. I'm serious. It has a lot of power but it is by no means sporty or supposed to be a sports car.. or a sport compact.. all depends on what u think power is, i guess..