"HEY GUYS!" The smiling Mazda3 just couldn't wait for the LA show...

[the Teuton]

So? Remember the 3.1 L Cavalier, 3.0 L Shadow/Sundance, blah blah blah?

Were they even remotely fast?

[Soup DeVille]

Were they even remotely fast?

Compared to??? Yes, yes they were.

[the Teuton]

Compared to??? Yes, yes they were.

I dunno.  By today's standards, that would be like sticking the 3.9 V6 in the Cobalt.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Compared to??? Yes, yes they were.

About 10 seconds flat in the 1/8 mile IIRC.

[Soup DeVille]

I dunno.  By today's standards, that would be like sticking the 3.9 V6 in the Cobalt.

Not fair, they're not built today.

[Eye of the Tiger]

10.1 seconds, my Duster did. I just found it.

[Laconian]

MY DUSTAH

This brings back memories of riding to high school in my friend's POS Corsica. It threw a rod on his prom night. 3.1L EFI ABS FTL

[the Teuton]

Not fair, they're not built today.

The cars have always been shit, but were they ever the shit?

[Eye of the Tiger]

MY DUSTAH

This brings back memories of riding to high school in my friend's POS Corsica. It threw a rod on his prom night. 3.1L EFI ABS FTL

Pffft. Not even close. Sundace Dusters used a 6G72 V6, same block as in the 3000GT Twin Turbo, so it's basically a race car. Corsicas are POS.

[Soup DeVille]

The cars have always been shit, but were they ever the shit?

Not what you asked: They were quicker than average when they were built and sold: enough so to lend credence to their claim of being fast and inexpensive cars.

[the Teuton]

Did someone say Sundance?

[the Teuton]

Not what you asked: They were quicker than average when they were built and sold: enough so to lend credence to their claim of being fast and inexpensive cars.

So sorta like what the Neon R/T was?

[Soup DeVille]

So sorta like what the Neon R/T was?

Yeah.

[Eye of the Tiger]

BASK IN THE GLORY OF THE 3.0 DUSTER

[280Z Turbo]

Are you drunk?

Here, read these again:

That's out of sequence.

Front bumper needs twerk.... I'm excited otherwise

I remember the days when 2.5L motors only came with 6 cylinders, and were reserved for luxury cars.

What year was that?

My point was that big 4 cylinders always were pretty common. Chris V didn't get that I guess.

[Submariner]

[sportyaccordy]

3 liters, 140 HP? What was the point

[2o6]

3 liters, 140 HP? What was the point

Emissions standards were sudden, and automakers didn't quite know how to use them effectively.

[MX793]

3 liters, 140 HP? What was the point

Because it was better than the 120 hp 2.2L pushrod 4 banger that was the alternative?

[Tave]

That's out of sequence.

Oh the shame. I am stupid.

My point was that big 4 cylinders always were pretty common. Chris V didn't get that I guess.

No, he thought you were responding to 93JC, just like I did.



Unless you did some work with that "modify" button.

[Eye of the Tiger]

3 liters, 140 HP? What was the point

Honda Accord? What was the point

[omicron]

So? Remember the 3.1 L Cavalier, 3.0 L Shadow/Sundance, blah blah blah?

The 3.2 litre I4 Tempest!

[the Teuton]

So how about the concepts that didn't make it?

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/unused-mazda3-sketches/1187040/

This is why automakers should never release concept sketches.  These just look so much better than the production version.

[Shift507]

That interior looks like a mix of Toyota and Suzuki.

[Laconian]

Mazda3 has a shit-eating grin on his face.
"I'M HANGING OUT WITH HOT CHICKS... SCORE!"

[The Pirate]

It looks like a guppy in that shot...

[Soup DeVille]

Mazda3 has a shit-eating grin on his face.
"I'M HANGING OUT WITH HOT CHICKS... SCORE!"

It may also help that those skirts end well above its "eye" level.

[Onslaught]

Shit Mazda. Why screw up one of the best car you've got?

I'd take the girl on the right.

[Raza]

Shit Mazda. Why screw up one of the best car you've got?

I'd take the girl on the right.

Me too, but I kind of like the car.

The one on the left looks a bit like Miss Brahms, doesn't she?

[omicron]

The only car that's genuinely happy: