New Mazda 3?

[Payman]

Fantastic. I think it's right there with my Focus as best looking cars in class. How can Mazda can make great looking cars while the other Japanese makers create rolling eyesores in this class?

[12,000 RPM]

Fantastic. I think it's right there with my Focus as best looking cars in class. How can Mazda can make great looking cars while the other Japanese makers create rolling eyesores in this class?

Mazda has no choice but excellence in every category. Not a bad thing for us I guess but I sure hope this gamble pays off.

[68_427]

[hotrodalex]

[Onslaught]

Those are RX-8 R3 rims on that thing.

[12,000 RPM]

They look great

Im not really hot on another turbo hot hatch though. We need some variety in the segment

[hotrodalex]

Not sure there's any other way to get that kind of power with an engine that'll fit in the engine bay.

[CALL_911]

A BRZ hatch would be dope

[280Z Turbo]

A BRZ hatch would be dope

A shooting brake?

Goddammit you guys. Shooting brakes are dumb!

[MX793]

Not sure there's any other way to get that kind of power with an engine that'll fit in the engine bay.

If Mazda had variable valve lift technology, they might be able to get 240+ hp out of their 2.5L SkyActiv motor sans turbo.  Unfortunately, they don't.  Maybe they could contract Yamaha to design them a head?  Of course, if they went NA they'd be down on torque to the Focus ST or GTI.

[Catman]

The last thing you should be able to access while driving is Facebook and Twitter.

[Tave]

Not bad at all. I think I'm still leaning towards the 6 or BRZ but I'll have to put this on the list too.

[12,000 RPM]

If Mazda had variable valve lift technology, they might be able to get 240+ hp out of their 2.5L SkyActiv motor sans turbo.  Unfortunately, they don't.  Maybe they could contract Yamaha to design them a head?  Of course, if they went NA they'd be down on torque to the Focus ST or GTI.

Thats too much $$$

Plus I am not sure how they could sneak that past emissions. I am surprised the FBRSZ has such a motor. 100HP/L NA motors are pretty much limited to exotics now.

[MX793]

Thats too much $$$

Plus I am not sure how they could sneak that past emissions. I am surprised the FBRSZ has such a motor. 100HP/L NA motors are pretty much limited to exotics now.

Hardly.  If anything, turbocharged motors are harder to get past emissions than NA.  Turbos are notorious for running a bit rich, increasing unburned HC emissions.  The problem with high specific output NA motors is more that their powerband tends to be pretty narrow.  Much moreso than a turbocharged engine of similar specific output.  Puts a damper on daily driveability, which is why you don't see Honda fitting the Accord, or Toyota the Camry, with a 100 hp/L N/A motor even though they have the technology to do so.

[Soup DeVille]

Not sure there's any other way to get that kind of power with an engine that'll fit in the engine bay.

Turbos and their plumbing take up a lot of space.

[hotrodalex]

Turbos and their plumbing take up a lot of space.

Yeah, but in a different way than two more cylinders or whatever.

[Raza]

Turbos and their plumbing take up a lot of space.

[12,000 RPM]

Hardly.  If anything, turbocharged motors are harder to get past emissions than NA.  Turbos are notorious for running a bit rich, increasing unburned HC emissions.  The problem with high specific output NA motors is more that their powerband tends to be pretty narrow.  Much moreso than a turbocharged engine of similar specific output.  Puts a damper on daily driveability, which is why you don't see Honda fitting the Accord, or Toyota the Camry, with a 100 hp/L N/A motor even though they have the technology to do so.

Rich running turbo motors is an old phenomenon. W/ECUs being as sophisticated as they are today, as well as the cooling effect of direct injection, turbo motors can run pretty clean.

With the right technology high specific output N/A motors can have pretty flat powerbands. Honda's DOHC VTEC motors were making ~80% of peak torque for like 80% of the rev range. The problem is a flat powerband isn't good for daily driving. The S2000 makes like 90% of peak torque throughout the rev range; but we are talking 150lb-ft in a 2800lb car. So you have to thrash it to get around which makes it inefficient. Contrast that with a "peaky" turbo engine like something in a VW or Audi, that spools + peaks off idle and begins to taper off at ~4K, where most daily driving (and EPA testing) never occurs anyway... the second approach makes much more sense.

You look at engines, 80-100lb-ft of torque per liter is about all you will see from an NA motor. More displacement = more pumping losses = lower efficiency (and higher consumption/emmissions) at part loads. In today's climate turbocharging makes sense.

[TBR]

I don't care enough to post these right, but here's the sedan: http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2014-mazda3-on-top-gear-russia/#photo-6010258/

No good pics of it in profile, but the proportions look good to me.

[2o6]

I'm warming up to it; I prefer the sedan and I think it looks pretty good in this darker color.

[12,000 RPM]

I don't like the C-pillar. Rear visibility is going to be ass. I am really fond of the interior though.

[2o6]

I don't like the C-pillar. Rear visibility is going to be ass. I am really fond of the interior though.

Looks like it shares rear doors with the hatch, which saves on costs.

[hotrodalex]

Wow, wasn't expecting the sedan to look that good.

[MX793]

The sedan does look quite good.  I think, much like the mkI 3, that this car is going to be a huge success for Mazda.  Definitely a contender for best-looking car in class.

[r0tor]

Maybe I shall drive and trade in focus....

[12,000 RPM]

Maybe I shall drive and trade in focus....

You have a Focus? What year/model/transmission? How do you like it?

[r0tor]

Its wifeys... 2013 SE sedan with the automatic (unshiftable dsg).

Overall it rides and handles great.  Motor is up to the task.  Tranny is great once your moving but a bit cranky when getting going from a stop - would be great with paddleshifters.  Overall quality is pretty good and extremely good for its class.

[12,000 RPM]

Good to know. I like the new Focus but heard the DSGs were problematic. Shame there's no paddle shift but that would have really jacked up the price. Could have been interesting on the ST

[2o6]

Good to know. I like the new Focus but heard the DSGs were problematic. Shame there's no paddle shift but that would have really jacked up the price. Could have been interesting on the ST

.....I don't think manual shifting actions add anything to price anymore. They've been standard on pretty much every Hyundai since 2002.....and they're standard on pretty much every GM car now, too.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

.....I don't think manual shifting actions add anything to price anymore. They've been standard on pretty much every Hyundai since 2002.....and they're standard on pretty much every GM car now, too.

Good to see gm start to offer more manuals. I didn't know they started making them available on cars like the malibu/impala/ss sedan.