MX-3.com

ive hit 120 when i had stock 1.6 dohc

130 with bpt

both on flat land


in some renault in germany 134mph and was passed by 2 racing porsches that made me look as if were crawling

I have driven a 2.2L malibu and they are not that fast. I drove my brothers srt4 before the stage 2 upgrades so it was stock. Stock, the 0-60 times is something like 5.8 or 5.9. And that thing was a lot faster than than the malibu.

Trying to time yourself is alot different from having it timed at a track. I tried timing my mx myself and it came out to like 6.something and i know thats not right.

lv2xlr8 wrote:I have driven a 2.2L malibu and they are not that fast. I drove my brothers srt4 before the stage 2 upgrades so it was stock. Stock, the 0-60 times is something like 5.8 or 5.9. And that thing was a lot faster than than the malibu.

Trying to time yourself is alot different from having it timed at a track. I tried timing my mx myself and it came out to like 6.something and i know thats not right.

Agreed. Try telling it to lorenzo

what are you doing even thinking of buying an RX7 one day, your right stick with you ecotec, and racing your moms malibu thats a 4cyl...lol if you say it can do 0-60 in 5-6 seconds somedays you should drive the 200hp 3.1 ud be in the 4-5 range taking vettes and vipers...lmao my girlfriend has a new pursuit with a 2.2 ecotec and i would put my mx3 with intake and exhaust N/A against it anyday especially an auto. even the 2.4 ecotec is gutless for 170 hp. hmmmm... be like the cavalier j-body crowd with chrome rims low pros, and aluminum wings on otherwise stock cars. Or buy a 92 mx3 and swap a BP, or a 94+ standard and throw 600-1000$ on a low boost reliable turbo setup. The reason you couldnt go any higher than 110 is probably because your VICS was seized and not engaged and it was an auto...lol It wouldnt matter if you had a 94,95 2.2l cavalier have fun getting up to 100 mph let alone the governor at 110. compare a 4 cyl mx3 to any 4 cyl of its day civic cx,dx,si, crapalier, neon and a mx3 will be one of the quickest and most reliable, plus the best looking. compare a v6 mx3 to a cavvy z24, si, celica gt, and anything else and a mx3 once again would be the best or right up there, plus the fun factor of driving.94 rs 6700 rev limit and it pulls hard to it, gs in the mid to high 7's - cavalier 6250, and doesnt pull newhere. the only cavalier id like to c line up against a mx3 would be a GS or RS vs. cavvy z24 with a 3.1 5 speed and still once the cavalier would hit 5500 it would be gasped out and ballless while the mx3 pulled past. a cavalier is A to B,rattly, unsmooth, bumpy vehicle-MX3 is a vehicle you have pride in for A to B or whereever the potential of it would take you. topspeed of my RS so far 225km/h because the car had stock suspension and didnt feel planted at all too loose, my probe gt hit 240 7000 in 5th so id imagine the same for a GS as its similar gearing to a probe and motor, but ive only seen my buddies GS go 180 because of blown struts(just got the car) a mx3 is NOT made from mazda to hanlde to higher speeds, hence the 108 hp 4 banger, the front end just lifts after 220 stock in the RS and in a auto not revving above 6000 stock no matter what you fixed the cars going to be SLOW...lol the peak horsepower is at 6300 so you were basically driving a SOHC 88hp not even utilizing the higher powerband of the DOHC. and id also put 500$ on a 92 or 93 rs SOHC 88hp (5 speed) from a 60 km/h roll against a 120hp 94 cavvy 5 speed.

iono about the mx3 staying up with the si's and what not...not stock anyways. but it is by far the best looking! correct me if im wrong but...doesnt the "eco" in eco tech refer to be more economically friendly..hence better gas mileage not performance now u throw a vortech v6 in there then u might have something to talk about

well a RS DOHC would give a Si hatch a good run but may fall short, but a GS would definatly take a Si hatch and a RS would take the CX,DX hatches of the same years. i take my buddies 93 Si hatch mind you it is beaten bad and riced up

i gotta say that our trannys are weak sauce like 120km/h equals to like 4000rpm?? that sucks A$$

not at all if the gears were wider the acceleration would be way worse, but a taller 5th and shorter 4th similar to a probe would be nice. i also think the vortec v6 is garbage guessing your talking about the 4.3l. a mazda 6 has more horsepower out of a 3.0l and torque than any chevy v6 except for the 3.4DOHC in the gtps and cutlass supreme convertibles and any new v6's. and ecotec does mean economic. i couldnt see a ecotech pulling a malibu especially considering its an auto so u cant even hold it past 6000. your driving a family sedan with a cavalier motor in it saying its fast....lol P.S. if a vortec v67 was a good motor they wouldnt of switched it to the 4.2 inline 6 with less displacement that puts down 295 horsepower as apposed to a 4.3's 160-pre vortec and 190 with vortec. now have an 80's v8 in a s10 and put some put some vortec heads on that then you have a nice motor. in my opinion GM can build 8 cyls is decent at 6 cyls and shitty at 4 bangers. plus the car your comparing is at least 10 years newer with 10 years of newer technology.
for a chevy mazda debate:
cobalt SS vs. Mazdaspeed3 -- mazdaspeed3
malibu vs. mazda6-- mazda 6
cobalt vs. mazda 3 -- mazda 3
malibu ss vs. mazdaspeed 6 -- mazdaspeed6
equinox vs. CX7 -- CX7
trailblazer vs. CX9 -- trailblazer
vettevs RX8-- vette

overall id say mazda has chevy beat except for the v6 in the CX9 and a 1.3l vs. a 6.0l vette or the 7.0l ZO6

pre 98
cavalier vs. mx3 -- mx3
cavalier z24 vs. mx3 gs -- mx3 gs
malibu vs. mx6-- mx6 by far

plus why is the new miata taking the soltice and sky that both have 2.4 ecotecs when the miata has less horsepower and torque and similar weight. 1) gearing 2)powerband 3) wheel size(lighter wheels do quicken acceleration with with less rotating mass 4) the ability to spin the tires on a launch instead of bogging. now throw the ls6 in a sky and you have anice car but not a ecotec.GM cant build a 4 banger. plus go onto jbodyclub.com and see how many ecotechs are holding past 50000 let alone ones with mods. the last good 4 banger they made was the 2.5l of the 80's and previously which was also borrowed by jeep. and if u like maintenance a quad 4 but try to fin done in a nicely styled car i think the nicest was a beretta.and to think ur preaching about a ecotech when with less displacement a 80's gm quad 4 has 40 more hp than the newest ecotec and 10 more than the 2.4 ecotec. and this is coming from a guy that lives in a chevy town.

its one thing to come on here and say ur mazdas a POS compared to what u thought it would be like. but to compare it to a malibu not even with the v6 you obviously havent put much forthought into the cars in its competition range. its like comparing ur moms malibu to a new impala SS or grand prix GXP, your comparing apples to oranges. the only reason im like this with GM is because of their reliability problems eg. 3,4l intake gaskets gallore, 2.2l head gasket which usually causes a warped head. it will be interesting to see what problems their first shot at VVT-I v6's have and the ecotecs. look at ow many 89-90 miatas have their original engines ripping around there are and in 15 years see how many 2006 solstices ans skys are ripping around with the original motor. i bet most probably 90% will be swappe dto v8's in 10 years let alone 15

Any comparison between my beautiful MX-3 and a Cavalier is both insulting and, I would argue, morally wrong.

Bottom line...if you wanna have a car with character and style, love your MX-3. If you wanna go 10-20MPH faster and disappear in a crowd of Civics or Cavaliers...well that's a trade I'm not willing to make.

i have an 02 envoy and i would take a cx-9 with no problem only becuase of the rearend. they come out of the factory with a 4.11. it's stout thats for sure, but if they both had the same rearend it would be real tight

the eco has nothing to do with the engine, its just a name they came up with, thye hope consumers draw that comparison, but its not nessicerraly the purpose of the engine.

the ecotec is an underacheiving engine, it has potential to do over 200hp in its 2.2 and 2.4 versions. my friend has a supercharges SS, and its just getting 100hp/L at the wheels which is pretty pathetic in a forced induction vehicle in my book. but the stock manifolds, camshafts and whatnot greatly hinder it. its a classic GM engine. sacrifice performance for manufactureing costs and driveability.

WingleBeast wrote:My friend has a supercharges SS, and its just getting 100hp/L at the wheels which is pretty pathetic in a forced induction vehicle in my book.

If it's stock boost it's not that surprising. It is on the low end of the scale, but compare it to other stock turbos, like the jspec b6t which has 91hp/L before the wheels. The jackson supercharger on a miata puts out 100hp/L.

wytbishop wrote:Any comparison between my beautiful MX-3 and a Cavalier is both insulting and, I would argue, morally wrong.

Bottom line...if you wanna have a car with character and style, love your MX-3. If you wanna go 10-20MPH faster and disappear in a crowd of Civics or Cavaliers...well that's a trade I'm not willing to make.

Same here.

wow....

has ANYONE not considered the fact

that the mx-3 will NOT do 150!!

the gearing is WAY to low

why it says that, idk mazda should be slapped

and the 1.6 has 88 hp!!!!

whp is about 80

take that in consideration too...

ive topped my car out

down a hill i was doin about 127

but i have mods

and its a SOHC