(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18s0d5opusih8jpg/k-bigpic.jpg)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18s0d6u5k9e9xjpg/original.jpg)
http://jalopnik.com/2014-mazda3-this-is-it-583836367 (http://jalopnik.com/2014-mazda3-this-is-it-583836367)
Cliffs:
Shorter + wider than the current car
2.0L & 2.5L Skyactiv lumps, the latter making the same ~185HP as the one in the 6
Eventual diesel
No word on price or weight yet but I expect the price to stay the same and the weight to drop 100-200lb. On paper at least, this looks to further solidify Mazda's dynamic crown in this segment.
Maybe it's just the angle, but it looks like two differently sized cars on opposite ends of the A-pillar.
Here's something I don't get to say very often. I think that looks pretty good.
Front end is too similar to the 6, but I guess that's not really a bad thing. Looks good.
I like it
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzl7okvmD_s705KlS_pGTq9y4dSIyOK8r9-jr8GSqMor_DNnoEUYyn-B8BNA)
That looks great
looks nice, the interior is a HUGE improvement compared to the design of the previous generation. That is the one thing that really made me desire the first gen cars over a newer second generation. Now this looks to have a much cleaner and sophisticated design. Hope it's a few pounds lighter than the old car(I thought that was mazda's big thing with the coming redesigns). I'm probably going to pick up a daily driver in the coming years, nice to know that these might be very attractive used candidates when that time comes.
Mazda is back this year. CX-5, 6, and 3 are game changers.
I don't like the giant bump in the front fender, but other than that it looks great.
I think it'll be more like 200-300 lbs off. Should be a great vehicle.
Really hoping for a Mazdaspeed version sooner rather than later.
To Job, Mazda-san.
Interior looks much better than previous Mazda and so much classier and tidier than the mess that Ford inflict on us. I reckon this is the bst looking car in its class........ look forward to hearing how well it drives. My expectations are high.
Interesting editorial on how Mazda has more than made up for the repeated failed launches of Alfa in the US. Truthfully this looks better than any mainstream Alfa since the 147/156. Probably goes better than those cars too (barring the GTAs)
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/06/qotd-alfa-romeo-in-north-america-whats-the-point/ (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/06/qotd-alfa-romeo-in-north-america-whats-the-point/)
Possible replacement for the TSX. Hope it's as luxe
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 26, 2013, 03:31:16 PMTruthfully this looks better than any mainstream Alfa since the 147/156.
I definitely don't agree with that.
Now.. where's my next Rotary engine car?
Quote from: NomisR on June 26, 2013, 03:53:29 PM
Now.. where's my next Rotary engine car?
Search the classifieds....
Quote from: Raza on June 26, 2013, 03:55:12 PM
Search the classifieds....
I hope they can figure it out and introduce the next rotary...
Quote from: NomisR on June 26, 2013, 04:03:20 PM
I hope they can figure it out and introduce the next rotary...
Why? It's an oddity that never worked.
Yeah, the rotary will never thrive. Turbo-4s are cannibalizing the market for light-but-strong motors, and they do so while returning respectable economy numbers.
This facelift can't come soon enough. I am not at all a fan of the current car's styling. I love the new 6 (looks very good in the flesh) and can't wait to see the new 3. Too bad I'll likely be replacing mine with a used car (doesn't make sense to buy new for what is essentially a winter-only driver). Maybe if mine holds up long enough I can pick up one of these new ones used.
Quote from: Raza on June 26, 2013, 04:05:08 PM
Why? It's an oddity that never worked.
It's just something that's makes for an interesting drive... just being able to rev to hell and back and not feel like the engine is straining ... i don't know.. it just feels good.. driving around in 3rd gear at 70mph and not even noticing it... yeah that..
Quote from: Laconian on June 26, 2013, 04:08:25 PM
Yeah, the rotary will never thrive. Turbo-4s are cannibalizing the market for light-but-strong motors, and they do so while returning respectable economy numbers.
Rotary's have no real advantages but they're still awesome. What other engine actually
needs you to rev the piss out of it every couple of days? :rockon:
With the advancements mazda made in their skyactive motors I have no doubt they are working on ways to advance the rotary design. I think they will succeed and find a way to increase fuel economy, durability and performance.
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 26, 2013, 04:41:29 PM
Rotary's have no real advantages but they're still awesome. What other engine actually needs you to rev the piss out of it every couple of days? :rockon:
What other engine
needs you to replace or rebuild it every two years? :dance:
I mean, rotary engines are cool and all, but I won't particularly miss them when they're gone. I respect them as an oddity, but never loved them enough to overlook the drawbacks.
Quote from: Raza on June 26, 2013, 05:38:54 PM
What other engine needs you to replace or rebuild it every two years? :dance:
Who says they needed to be replaced or rebuilt every 2 years?
I like it but it lost the sport wagon look a bit and just looks like a regular hatchback now?
Quote from: Catman on June 26, 2013, 06:00:52 PM
I like it but it lost the sport wagon look a bit and just looks like a regular hatchback now?
I think it looks hawt, but yeah, it overlaps with the 2 in the small hatchback department.
I guess the new lineup will be Mazda2 for basic, Mazda3 for premium, and CX-5 for versatile.
I like for the most part, but proportions look a little off to me. The relationship between the very front and the A-piller look a bit odd, makes the nose look long and it emphasizes the front overhang. I also am not 100% sold on the rear fascia. The more I look, the less I like it. I will have to see it in person - I didn't really care for the Mazda 6 either (and thought the Fusion was better looking), but after seeing it in person, I now think the Mazda 6 looks best in class.
Good interior, though.
Just from looking at the proporitons, I wonder if it's a cut down Mazda 6 instead of a ground-up small car. Proportions look a little less usable than say....a Golf.
Quote from: Laconian on June 26, 2013, 06:13:01 PM
I think it looks hawt, but yeah, it overlaps with the 2 in the small hatchback department.
The Mazda 2 is fucking tiny; it's closer to a City car in size than a Compact.
Its def got a little too much nose. It actually does look like a 6 with the trunk chopped off. It's sexy though.
I'm starting to dislike it now, honestly. What is this going to look like in sedan form?
It's got the face I expected, but the front to rear proportions are odd
Quote from: Laconian on June 26, 2013, 06:13:01 PM
I think it looks hawt, but yeah, it overlaps with the 2 in the small hatchback department.
The Mazda2 is 18 inches long and ten feet tall. I don't think this is going to overlap.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 26, 2013, 07:23:41 PM
I'm starting to dislike it now, honestly. What is this going to look like in sedan form?
The only way it will look good as a sedan is if they add some length (and rear overhang) to the car. A little more rear overhang may actually help the proportions a little by visually balancing the front overhang.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 26, 2013, 07:23:41 PM
I'm starting to dislike it now, honestly. What is this going to look like in sedan form?
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/sedans/1210_2014_mazda6_first_drive/40951402/2014-Mazda6-front-three-quarter.jpg)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 26, 2013, 09:16:22 PM
(http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadtests/sedans/1210_2014_mazda6_first_drive/40951402/2014-Mazda6-front-three-quarter.jpg)
That's going to look stumpy and unusable with a shorter wheelbase.
I feel like this is going to have the same tight interior problems as the current one, if not worse.
Agree with everyone else that the nose looks a big long. Still, it looks really good, better than anything else in the class imo. And the interior is fantastic. Hopefully it drives as well as the prev. two generations.
(http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/autonet-prod-content/1288374482576_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=584x&stmp=1372260616875&clip=0)
I dunno, somehow these proportions don't bother me as much as on the Merc CLA
It doesn't look too bad there.
The A-class in general has crap proportions.
Side profile looks great. The nose doesn't look giant compared to the rest of the car like it does in the front 3/4 view.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 26, 2013, 09:18:28 PM
That's going to look stumpy and unusable with a shorter wheelbase.
I feel like this is going to have the same tight interior problems as the current one, if not worse.
What do you mean "tight interior problem"? The car is no tighter inside than any other compact I've been in (excluding "jumbo compacts" like the Jetta and Cruze, which technically qualify as midsizers).
The nose does bother me a bit but there's nothing they can do about it. I think it's the best compact car nose in this "save the stupid pedestrians" era. I think a trunk will help balance out the nose, though if it's as stumpy as the current car's trunk I'm not sure it will be enough.
It's not perfect but it's a definite improvement and more attractive than anything in its class (including the Guiletta). I think Mazda has a hit.
Quote from: MX793 on June 27, 2013, 04:21:14 AM
What do you mean "tight interior problem"? The car is no tighter inside than any other compact I've been in (excluding "jumbo compacts" like the Jetta and Cruze, which technically qualify as midsizers).
Wow. The Jetta V was really roomy, but well within the guidelines of a compact car. However, the Jetta VI has a combined volume of 110 cubic feet, which is over threshold for a compact car--though the EPA still considers it a compact, which is odd.
I'm guessing the sloping roof line in the back really cuts out some interior space.
Quote from: Catman on June 27, 2013, 08:25:12 AM
I'm guessing the sloping roof line in the back really cuts out some interior space.
Yeah, but is it space that's normally used?
Quote from: MX793 on June 27, 2013, 04:21:14 AM
What do you mean "tight interior problem"? The car is no tighter inside than any other compact I've been in (excluding "jumbo compacts" like the Jetta and Cruze, which technically qualify as midsizers).
Rear seat is a little small, compared to most of the class - Cruze, Jetta, Corolla, Sentra, Golf.....and nearly everything else.
Quote from: Catman on June 27, 2013, 08:25:12 AM
I'm guessing the sloping roof line in the back really cuts out some interior space.
The Corolla is ugly, but it will be huge inside. The new Sentra is very ugly, but those proportions allow for a really big interior. The way the wheelbase/greenhouse is positioned, it seems like the rear seat and overall cabin is smaller than typical compared to the car's length.
Quote from: MiataJohn on June 27, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
Yeah, but is it space that's normally used?
You'll find out when the hatch won't close.
Not bad looking for a shit box class car. The interior is SO MUCH better looking then the one it's replacing.
As for Rotary engines. Yes, Mazda is still working on the 1.6 replacement called the 16X. And no, you don't need to replace or rebuild them every 2 years. You can get 4 years out of them before that! :lol:
OFFICIAL 2014 MAZDA3 WORLD PREMIERE VIDEO | SKYACTIV Technology | Mazda Canada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6GblGM_8Xc#ws)
Quote from: Onslaught on June 27, 2013, 04:01:20 PM
Not bad looking for a shit box class car. The interior is SO MUCH better looking then the one it's replacing.
As for Rotary engines. Yes, Mazda is still working on the 1.6 replacement called the 16X. And no, you don't need to replace or rebuild them every 2 years. You can get 4 years out of them before that! :lol:
Shit box class? What is this 1985?
The compact class has been getting better and better, mang.
Shitbox class is now 2 steps below in the form of city cars.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 27, 2013, 09:25:11 PM
Shit box class? What is this 1985?
The compact class has been getting better and better, mang.
Shitbox class is now 2 steps below in the form of city cars.
Shit box to me. I don't give two rat turds about Mazda3's, Honda Civics or Ford Focus kind of cars. But I hope they sell a shit ton so I can get the kind of cars I do give a few rat turds about.
HUD??
Quote from: Laconian on June 27, 2013, 10:58:16 PM
HUD??
That I find poorly implemented. Others are able to do that without a physical screen.
What would life be like if I couldn't check-in or tweet "Stuck in traffic LOL" without taking my phone out of my pocket?
Nice looking car IMHO.
Quote from: Galaxy on June 28, 2013, 02:36:41 AM
That I find poorly implemented. Others are able to do that without a physical screen.
I don't know, a separate screen could have some benefits. If you live in cool, humid climates, the insides of the windshield can be very prone to condensation. Mine has, at times, been so bad that it actually saturated my registration sticker (large droplets of water on the inside of the glass that had to be mopped up with a paper towel, too much water to simply defog with the defroster). A separate screen would mean no risk of condensation screwing up the readout. May also permit the use of anti-glare or other treatments that can't easily be applied to a windshield, or the use of materials with better reflective/refractive properties than windshield glass.
On one hand it seems like it would control optical distortion.
On the other hand, it's another thing to get dusty and annoying.
The last thing you should be able to access while driving is Facebook and Twitter.
Calling it an HUD is false advertising since you still have to take your eyes off the road to look at it.
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?
Quote from: Rockraven on June 29, 2013, 09:22:40 AM
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.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2013/06/628x335xmazda3watermark.png.pagespeed.ic.hmQL5JnfTT.png)
:wub:
Those are RX-8 R3 rims on that thing.
They look great
Im not really hot on another turbo hot hatch though. We need some variety in the segment
Not sure there's any other way to get that kind of power with an engine that'll fit in the engine bay.
A BRZ hatch would be dope
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 29, 2013, 04:05:23 PM
A BRZ hatch would be dope
A shooting brake?
Goddammit you guys. Shooting brakes are dumb! :lol:
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 29, 2013, 03:14:09 PM
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 29, 2013, 01:16:32 AM
The last thing you should be able to access while driving is Facebook and Twitter.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQX7fzXBbf6h-s_87TTvGCpCbvuV_t3xhjgJir6t3BDBAegZoNMaA)
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.
Quote from: MX793 on June 29, 2013, 04:17:36 PM
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 $$$
Plus I am not sure how they could sneak that past emissions. I am surprised the FBRSZ has such a motor. 100HP/L NA motors are pretty much limited to exotics now.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 29, 2013, 07:10:29 PM
Thats too much $$$
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.
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 29, 2013, 03:14:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 30, 2013, 01:34:41 AM
Turbos and their plumbing take up a lot of space.
Yeah, but in a different way than two more cylinders or whatever.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 30, 2013, 01:34:41 AM
Turbos and their plumbing take up a lot of space.
:whatshesaid:
Quote from: MX793 on June 29, 2013, 07:19:03 PM
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.
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/ (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.
I'm warming up to it; I prefer the sedan and I think it looks pretty good in this darker color.
I don't like the C-pillar. Rear visibility is going to be ass. I am really fond of the interior though.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 03, 2013, 10:11:45 PM
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.
Wow, wasn't expecting the sedan to look that good.
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.
Maybe I shall drive and trade in focus....
Quote from: r0tor on July 04, 2013, 08:00:43 AM
Maybe I shall drive and trade in focus....
You have a Focus? What year/model/transmission? How do you like it?
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.
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
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 04, 2013, 10:48:13 AM
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.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 05, 2013, 10:19:34 PM
.....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.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on July 05, 2013, 10:27:16 PM
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.
Manual shifting actions - poorly worded effort to say "manual mode" on an auto trans.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 05, 2013, 10:19:34 PM
.....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.
And the Focus's DSG has a manual shifting mode, it just doesn't have steering wheel mounted paddles. Shifts are executed via a toggle switch on the shift lever.
Except our model doesnt... the toggle switch is poorly implemented anyway
Quote from: 2o6 on July 05, 2013, 10:19:34 PM
.....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.
It doesn't cost much to add buttons that don't do anything. My dad's M45 has "manumatic"... it's a miracle when it actually listens to your shift commands, especially at speed.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 06, 2013, 12:56:13 PM
It doesn't cost much to add buttons that don't do anything. My dad's M45 has "manumatic"... it's a miracle when it actually listens to your shift commands, especially at speed.
What does an old-ass manumatic function have to do with anything?
Quote from: 2o6 on July 06, 2013, 04:16:29 PM
What does an old-ass manumatic function have to do with anything?
That old unresponsive function is the kind of low cost add on they would put in something like the Focus. They wouldn't re-engineer the transmission's electronics for a $18,000 car
That's wrong.....
For starters, the DSG in the Focus would be the most responsive to a manual mode. And the MT function in most TC cheapo automatics work well enough.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 06, 2013, 07:28:46 PM
That's wrong.....
For starters, the DSG in the Focus would be the most responsive to a manual mode. And the MT function in most TC cheapo automatics work well enough.
They're not. The function in my Rabbit is worthless, the function in my dad's M45 is worthless, the function in every rental car I've had with it was worthless. OF all the cars I've driven with it,
ONE was worth having- G35- which made my dad's worthless transmission that much more bewildering.
Leave the autos auto. If people want to shift for themselves they will get manuals.
The manumatic in the newest Sienna is worthless.
E46s have decent manumatic ability, although I don't see the point 99% of the time. Only times I used it were when I was racing up and down mountain roads.
A manumatic is just the car patronizing me.
"Hey imma real sports car! Come on shift me! Let's have fun"
"You don't need me"
"Sure I do! You can shift better than anybody I know! Let's pretend we're racing!"
"Just leave me alone and do your job, car"
There are two kinds of cars, those with clutch pedals and automatics.
hotrodalex touched on a good point. I did a mountain run on the bike a while back and relied heavily on engine braking to slow me down. A recalcitrant manumatic would be doubly dangerous- not providing engine braking when needed, and putting the stopping load back on the brakes, which on a downhill slope is bad juju. I do think most automatics today have some kind of hill control though. The Rabbit downshifts under heavy braking and I think up and down hills too.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 07, 2013, 08:01:53 AM
hotrodalex touched on a good point. I did a mountain run on the bike a while back and relied heavily on engine braking to slow me down. A recalcitrant manumatic would be doubly dangerous- not providing engine braking when needed, and putting the stopping load back on the brakes, which on a downhill slope is bad juju. I do think most automatics today have some kind of hill control though. The Rabbit downshifts under heavy braking and I think up and down hills too.
You can manually control pretty much any automatic, even old-school autos from before the days when "manumatic" mode became common. Since the 90s, Fords have had an overdrive button that would lock out OD and force the transmission into D (3rd gear) for descending hills. Plus you always had L2 and L1 (or just L) which would allow the transmission to go no higher than 2nd gear, or 1st in some cases.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 07, 2013, 08:01:53 AM
hotrodalex touched on a good point. I did a mountain run on the bike a while back and relied heavily on engine braking to slow me down. A recalcitrant manumatic would be doubly dangerous- not providing engine braking when needed, and putting the stopping load back on the brakes, which on a downhill slope is bad juju. I do think most automatics today have some kind of hill control though. The Rabbit downshifts under heavy braking and I think up and down hills too.
Our focus has a downhill button you press and then it aggressively downshifts going down hills and braking... seems to work as a poor mans sport button
Quote from: MX793 on July 07, 2013, 08:17:39 AM
You can manually control pretty much any automatic, even old-school autos from before the days when "manumatic" mode became common. Since the 90s, Fords have had an overdrive button that would lock out OD and force the transmission into D (3rd gear) for descending hills. Plus you always had L2 and L1 (or just L) which would allow the transmission to go no higher than 2nd gear, or 1st in some cases.
Yep, and properly modified, an old 3-speed hydramatic is more responsive than 90% of all modern manumatic modes.
Yep, the TH350 in my dad's Camaro listens almost perfectly. I don't think he ever keeps it in D around town.
Quote from: MX793 on July 07, 2013, 08:17:39 AM
You can manually control pretty much any automatic, even old-school autos from before the days when "manumatic" mode became common. Since the 90s, Fords have had an overdrive button that would lock out OD and force the transmission into D (3rd gear) for descending hills. Plus you always had L2 and L1 (or just L) which would allow the transmission to go no higher than 2nd gear, or 1st in some cases.
I mean autos will eventually respond. My dad's will go into the right gear if you treat it just right and give it time. My friend used to beat the shit out of his Altima V6's 4AT... it shifted pretty reliably actually. But it's def no substitute for a real manual.
My Maxima had manual shifting and so does my CX-9 I don't use it. Does anyone use it?
Quote from: Catman on July 07, 2013, 10:52:10 PM
My Maxima had manual shifting and so does my CX-9 I don't use it. Does anyone use it?
No
Quote from: Catman on July 07, 2013, 10:52:10 PM
My Maxima had manual shifting and so does my CX-9 I don't use it. Does anyone use it?
No. My Rabbit has it too. It's garbage.
My friend's Maxima had it though and it actually worked pretty damn well. It was a 2004 SE. His next car was stickshift though.
The manual shifting automatic thing seems too gimmicky. On the G37S my dad and I drove, putting it in Drive Sport seemed to work better than trying to manually shift gears.
I'd agree it's a gimmick for most automatics. For good DSGs though, it's not a gimmick at all. Unfortunately, the Focus's DSG is pretty slow to respond. Not worth even putting paddle shifters on that thing.
I used to use it 100% of the time in my E class and Passat. Then I bought a stick car and I generally let automatics do what they're going to do when I drive them. Although the transmissions in my mom's CLS and my brother's S4 (DSG) are both pretty responsive.
I use it in the Infiniti when I'm driving the twisties. Otherwise, I leave it in auto.
It works well in the TSX, but it needs more than 5 gears.
If I didn't drive a stick for my DD, I'd probably get more enjoyment out some of the paddle systems in customer cars...but I don't. Although the one in the 2010 Maxima I detailed about a week ago wasn't too bad. It seemed quick to respond, at least, which is the area where manumatics seem to fuck it up the most.
Quote from: giant_mtb on July 08, 2013, 02:57:23 PM
If I didn't drive a stick for my DD, I'd probably get more enjoyment out some of the paddle systems in customer cars...but I don't. Although the one in the 2010 Maxima I detailed about a week ago wasn't too bad. It seemed quick to respond, at least, which is the area where manumatics seem to fuck it up the most.
Its also a CVT
Quote from: 2o6 on July 08, 2013, 03:11:20 PM
Its also a CVT
Right.
All the newer Subarus that have CVTs have absolutely horrendous manumatic functionality.
Quote from: giant_mtb on July 08, 2013, 02:57:23 PM
If I didn't drive a stick for my DD, I'd probably get more enjoyment out some of the paddle systems in customer cars...but I don't. Although the one in the 2010 Maxima I detailed about a week ago wasn't too bad. It seemed quick to respond, at least, which is the area where manumatics seem to fuck it up the most.
One of the regulars in our region autocrosses a 3.5L Altima with the CVT and I'm told he doesn't even bother with the manumatic function, he just leaves it in full auto. Does pretty well with it too.
Needing to see it in person but I think the refreshingly simple Miata-like dash is spectacular. I think I will like the exterior, too. I just do not like the pics I have seen.
42 High Resolution Photos and More Coming (Supposedly) at Below Link
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1418.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1418.jpg.html)
http://www.carscoops.com/2013/07/2014-mazda3-sedan-new-gallery-with-37.html (http://www.carscoops.com/2013/07/2014-mazda3-sedan-new-gallery-with-37.html)
^ Impressive sideshow from "CarScoops" (above post) and enough pics for me to say I think it is HOT!
Quote from: Catman on July 07, 2013, 10:52:10 PM
My Maxima had manual shifting and so does my CX-9 I don't use it. Does anyone use it?
*raises hand*
I often use mine in parking lots because the car would otherwise shift between first and second at 10 km/h, which is incredibly annoying. I put in it second and leave it.
I also downshift at the top of hills so that I don't have to ride the brakes down. I have always done so. :huh:
Quote from: 93JC on July 08, 2013, 09:42:07 PM
*raises hand*
I often use mine in parking lots because the car would otherwise shift between first and second at 10 km/h, which is incredibly annoying. I put in it second and leave it.
I also downshift at the top of hills so that I don't have to ride the brakes down. I have always done so. :huh:
In the second case, that's nothing that any automatic wouldn't do.
Quote from: MX793 on July 08, 2013, 03:25:50 PM
One of the regulars in our region autocrosses a 3.5L Altima with the CVT and I'm told he doesn't even bother with the manumatic function, he just leaves it in full auto. Does pretty well with it too.
I wouldn't bother with it either in an autocross. But for driving around town...it can just add that tiny bit of excitement to the drive. :ohyeah:
Isn't most autocross done in 2nd gear anyway? Not a huge need to shift.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 08, 2013, 11:44:53 PM
Isn't most autocross done in 2nd gear anyway? Not a huge need to shift.
Manumatic controls will (well, are supposed to) keep it in the gear you put it in.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 08, 2013, 10:20:27 PM
In the second case, that's nothing that any automatic wouldn't do.
Or nothing any automatic
couldn't do. Like I said I have always done so. In my car that happens to mean putting the shifter in 'M' and selecting 4th or 3rd. In the past, in other cars, that meant pushing an "O/D OFF" button, or shifting from 'OD' to 'D' or 'D' to '3' or 'L' or what have you.
Some people say that that's just "pretending to have a manual transmission"; I think it's driving a car properly.
Quote from: 93JC on July 08, 2013, 09:42:07 PM
*raises hand*
I often use mine in parking lots because the car would otherwise shift between first and second at 10 km/h, which is incredibly annoying. I put in it second and leave it.
I also downshift at the top of hills so that I don't have to ride the brakes down. I have always done so. :huh:
I used mine in the couple of Maxima's I owned with this type of "dual transmission" (earlier Maxi's I drove didn't offer it) but mainly when passing and on steep hills. I thought I would miss the feature (not on my new Volvo) but soon got over it :tounge:
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 08, 2013, 11:44:53 PM
Isn't most autocross done in 2nd gear anyway? Not a huge need to shift.
Depends on the car and the course. I've never needed to use higher than 2nd (or to downshift into first), but all of the cars I've ever autocrossed had reasonably broad powerbands and could do 60+ mph in 2nd. I've seen some guys with Hondas, especially, who have needed to shift into first on some sections of some courses to keep the VTEC engaged. Miatas and Hondas seem to frequently need to shift into 3rd on the run up to the finish lights on a lot of the layouts we run.
Most automatics are programmed to upshift to the highest gear possible as fast as possible. You don't want the car upshifting when you let off the gas to apply the brakes when entering a corner, so if anything, using manumatic mode to lock the car into 2nd gear would seem to be preferable if nothing but to reduce the amount of gear hunting the car does.
Quote from: Atomic on July 09, 2013, 09:38:26 AM
I used mine in the couple of Maxima's I owned with this type of "dual transmission" (earlier Maxi's I drove didn't offer it) but mainly when passing and on steep hills. I thought I would miss the feature (not on my new Volvo) but soon got over it :tounge:
Your XC60 has a manumatic mode.
Quote from: CJ on July 09, 2013, 03:20:07 PM
Your XC60 has a manumatic mode.
It does?! :confused:
:evildude: Must be "hidden" but off in it soon!!
Just move the shifter either elect or right when in D.
When I had a rental ATS recently I used the manumatic function most of the time. When I first started driving it I left it in auto but I found that it was often in too high of a gear for where I would want it to be, so I started using the manumatic function. It was pretty responsive and made the Dallas traffic more tolerable.
Quote from: CJ on July 10, 2013, 05:27:47 PM
Just move the shifter either elect or right when in D.
Amazing! Volvo ingenuously makes everything look and feel so integrated that I couldn't tell I had it. Thanx CJ. It works like a charm and like the Maxi and most other cars I tried, not a single jerky motion when operation this feature. On the road today and what a difference in performance and thankfully MPG (for the better) ~ a marked improvement and an entirely new driving experience :0) Was so caught up into the many, many safety features and tech devices of my loaded '13 AWD R-Design Volvo T6, I overlooked this cleverly intricate part of the XC60 ownership experience!
Quote from: Atomic on July 11, 2013, 09:39:51 AM
Amazing! Volvo ingenuously makes everything look and feel so integrated that I couldn't tell I had it. Thanx CJ. It works like a charm and like the Maxi and most other cars I tried, not a single jerky motion when operation this feature. On the road today and what a difference in performance and thankfully MPG (for the better) ~ a marked improvement and an entirely new driving experience :0) Was so caught up into the many, many safety features and tech devices of my loaded '13 AWD R-Design Volvo T6, I overlooked this cleverly intricate part of the XC60 ownership experience!
My Mercedes was like that. I preferred the manual shifting to have its own position in a separated gate, like on my Passat.
Almost zero difference between the sedan and wagon. What's the point?
Quote from: Catman on July 11, 2013, 02:44:51 PM
Almost zero difference between the sedan and wagon. What's the point?
Well, one is a sedan and the other is a hatchback.
Quote from: Catman on July 11, 2013, 02:44:51 PM
Almost zero difference between the sedan and wagon. What's the point?
Extra versatility versus secured storage, or different looks...
Fuel economy numbers:
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/11/2014-mazda3-2-0l-hatchback-officially-rated-at-40-mpg-highway/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/11/2014-mazda3-2-0l-hatchback-officially-rated-at-40-mpg-highway/)
The real concern here is that it seems the 2.5 will be AT only. That's a shame, and it will really be a shame if this means you can't get a manual transmission with leather, a sunroof, etc.
C/D's first drive puts me at ease: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-3-first-drive-review (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-3-first-drive-review)
Usual fluff, but it does say that a 6MT will be available with the 2.5 after a couple of months.
Quote from: Raza on July 11, 2013, 10:46:14 AM
My Mercedes was like that. I preferred the manual shifting to have its own position in a separated gate, like on my Passat.
Same with my JGC
Quote from: TBR on July 11, 2013, 03:53:35 PM
C/D's first drive puts me at ease: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-3-first-drive-review (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-3-first-drive-review)
Usual fluff, but it does say that a 6MT will be available with the 2.5 after a couple of months.
Unfortunately, it looks like no matter what trim you select, you still get radio or infotainment controls that looks like after market trash tacked on the dashboard
Quote from: r0tor on July 11, 2013, 07:35:29 PM
Unfortunately, it looks like no matter what trim you select, you still get radio or infotainment controls that looks like after market trash tacked on the dashboard
Tablet style screens are all the rage these days, unfortunately.
I think the 3's setup is much better looking than the 6's.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 11, 2013, 03:02:37 PM
Well, one is a sedan and the other is a hatchback.
Yes, I think I know that. My point is there is very little difference. The hatchback doesn't look like it adds much space at all.
Quote from: Catman on July 11, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
Yes, I think I know that. My point is there is very little difference. The hatchback doesn't look like it adds much space at all.
The difference is in the vertical space of the cargo area. The height of the trunk and the even lower height of the structure at the base of the rear window (behind the rear seats) in the sedan limits how much I can fit in the trunk. I can't carry a second set of tires in my trunk. I can fit maybe 1 in the trunk and stack the others in the back seat. The hatch can fit a set of 4 tires without dropping the rear seats. Sedans have < 12 cu.ft. of trunk space while the hatches have 17 cu.ft. with the seats up. That's significant.
Quote from: Catman on July 11, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
Yes, I think I know that. My point is there is very little difference. The hatchback doesn't look like it adds much space at all.
We ended up buying the focus sedan because the focus hatch didn't have crap for luggage space with the seats up. The sedan had about an extra foot of room.
I'll have to see it in person, but it looks great in pics. I think I may have found a car that will replace my '01 Protege in a few years.
I think the 5 door looks better.
I think they're also bringing the Skyactive-D platform, definitely interested.
Diesels are noisy and stinky.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 15, 2013, 02:43:56 PM
Diesels are noisy and stinky.
Yep, no matter what our German friends say I've never been in one I liked.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 15, 2013, 02:43:56 PM
Diesels are noisy and stinky.
I've driven the 335d and the R350 Bluetec and I haven't had any problems with them. They didn't sound like your old school diesels and since I'm inside, I didn't smell it either. But the torque is awesome!
I was being sarcastic.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 15, 2013, 07:07:54 PM
I was being sarcastic.
Sadly, people actually think that.. :(
Not only are diesels noisy and smelly, there are only eight gas stations in the country that sell diesel, and if you pour it over yourself, it's very difficult to get out as well as flammable.
Quote from: Onslaught on July 15, 2013, 02:46:28 PM
Yep, no matter what our German friends say I've never been in one I liked.
+1. I didn't like any of the diesels I drove in Europe too much.
Quote from: Raza on July 16, 2013, 01:36:37 AM
Not only are diesels noisy and smelly, there are only eight gas stations in the country that sell diesel, and if you pour it over yourself, it's very difficult to get out as well as flammable.
Diesel is combustible but it is not flammable.
Quote from: Raza on July 16, 2013, 01:36:37 AM
Not only are diesels noisy and smelly, there are only eight gas stations in the country that sell diesel, and if you pour it over yourself, it's very difficult to get out as well as flammable.
When was the last time you poured gasoline all over yourself?
Edit: Sorry, forgot this is a part of your daily terrorist training regimen.
The best one I've ever heard was over at GMinsidenews. A member actually expressed concern over his wife filling up their theoretical diesel passenger car at "dangerous diesel isles populated by filthy over the road truckers" and actually mentioned rape. It was unbelievable.
LOLLL
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on July 16, 2013, 11:24:03 AM
The best one I've ever heard was over at GMinsidenews. A member actually expressed concern over his wife filling up their theoretical diesel passenger car at "dangerous diesel isles populated by filthy over the road truckers" and actually mentioned rape. It was unbelievable.
Haha...I sure wouldn't mind running into this over-the-road trucker at the diesel pumps :wub:
(http://i2.listal.com/image/2213992/600full-lisa-kelly.jpg)
Quote from: Vinsanity on July 16, 2013, 12:39:09 PM
Haha...I sure wouldn't mind running into this over-the-road trucker at the diesel pumps :wub:
(http://i2.listal.com/image/2213992/600full-lisa-kelly.jpg)
I'd let her ride on my ice road (that's what I call my stationary bike. I know penis would make more sense, but I call my penis "the squared circle").
I call mine the broken bicycle seat.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on July 16, 2013, 07:32:21 PM
I call mine the broken bicycle seat.
I used to call it the Freshmaker, but then I got a cease and desist from Mentos.
Quote from: NomisR on July 16, 2013, 11:06:45 AM
When was the last time you poured gasoline all over yourself?
I doused myself 3 weeks ago when I put my tank back in.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 16, 2013, 09:49:07 PM
I doused myself 3 weeks ago when I put my tank back in.
Sucks, I've had that shit dump all over me at the start of a work day. Stink to high heaven all day.
I've actually warmed significantly to this car. I am contemplating trading in my CX-9 since we have the RX and really don't need two SUV's and if I got one of these now I could hand it to my son in five years when he gets his license. But one of my daughters needs a car ASAP so we need to figure that out first.
Quote from: Raza on July 16, 2013, 08:20:35 PM
I used to call it the Freshmaker, but then I got a cease and desist from Mentos.
I saw a Mentos ad the other day and it appears their new slogan is "Roll with it".
Took one on a test drive. These are nice. The interior is a class leader. Still not sure about the tacked on display on top of the dash.
Quote from: Catman on October 27, 2013, 12:37:59 PM
Took one on a test drive. These are nice. The interior is a class leader. Still not sure about the tacked on display on top of the dash.
I liked it, and IMO the sedan is the better looking car of the two.
Still, id rather buy a clearanced out last year's model
Quote from: 2o6 on October 27, 2013, 03:16:24 PM
I liked it, and IMO the sedan is the better looking car of the two.
Still, id rather buy a clearanced out last year's model
They had quite a few left there. Sedan looks good. I live the 6 but damn, only the sedan? I want a hatch or wagon.
Quote from: Catman on October 27, 2013, 05:04:30 PM
They had quite a few left there. Sedan looks good. I live the 6 but damn, only the sedan? I want a hatch or wagon.
The hatch is much better looking.
Well, I am now an owner of a new 3. I guess I do not much understand the griping, but the 3 is an excellent compact and the mileage beyond excellent ($17 for a tank of gas?).
I also enjoy the commander knob to operate the infotainment system. The lack of lunging and reaching towards the radio is excellent.
It's not a fancy model. I have a 4 Door i sedan with the preferred package.
Congrats! They're a blast to drive.
dont forget to tint the windows and set the hvac permanently to the recirculate setting. you know, for hot boxing.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on December 23, 2015, 09:05:04 PM
dont forget to tint the windows and set the hvac permanently to the recirculate setting. you know, for hot boxing.
Exhaust gas recirculation?
Quote from: MX793 on December 23, 2015, 09:07:54 PM
Exhaust gas recirculation?
part of the Skyactive system
Quote from: WookieOnRitalin on December 23, 2015, 08:31:05 PM
Well, I am now an owner of a new 3. I guess I do not much understand the griping, but the 3 is an excellent compact and the mileage beyond excellent ($17 for a tank of gas?).
I also enjoy the commander knob to operate the infotainment system. The lack of lunging and reaching towards the radio is excellent.
It's not a fancy model. I have a 4 Door i sedan with the preferred package.
I feel like that is the best model honestly.
Quote from: WookieOnRitalin on December 23, 2015, 08:31:05 PM
Well, I am now an owner of a new 3. I guess I do not much understand the griping, but the 3 is an excellent compact and the mileage beyond excellent ($17 for a tank of gas?).
I also enjoy the commander knob to operate the infotainment system. The lack of lunging and reaching towards the radio is excellent.
It's not a fancy model. I have a 4 Door i sedan with the preferred package.
The 2.0 is a pretty sweet engine, it strikes a great balance of pep and fuel economy.
I'm a Golf guy, but the 3s GT hatch is very tempting. The 3 is one of the few good looking cars made today. Congratulations!
If I got a 3 it would be the i sedan with navigation. Golf is a much better hatch
Quote from: WookieOnRitalin on December 23, 2015, 08:31:05 PM
Well, I am now an owner of a new 3. I guess I do not much understand the griping, but the 3 is an excellent compact and the mileage beyond excellent ($17 for a tank of gas?).
I also enjoy the commander knob to operate the infotainment system. The lack of lunging and reaching towards the radio is excellent.
It's not a fancy model. I have a 4 Door i sedan with the preferred package.
Congrats. Best choice in the segment.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 24, 2015, 09:18:48 AM
If I got a 3 it would be the i sedan with navigation. Golf is a much better hatch
I like the 3 sedan too, but the hatch just looks that bit better.
Why the i over the s?
The s is a pretty hefty premium over the i. I love the 3 hatch, but its styling does compromise a lot of the hatch's practicality by impinging on cargo space. I like the sedan as well, and the car has always been one of the best driving cars in the segment. I'd like to find a used one to replace the Jetta in a couple of years as my winter car.
Quote from: Raza on December 24, 2015, 10:51:56 AM
I like the 3 sedan too, but the hatch just looks that bit better.
Why the i over the s?
Just seems like a better value. I am happy with my car's performance and it is an appreciable upgrade... 10% better power to weight ratio stock, and a much needed 6th gear. With a $500 91-93 octane tune you are at base 2.5 power levels. If the infotainment situation isn't as awful as I imagine it could definitely be a Civic replacement.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 24, 2015, 12:58:56 PM
Just seems like a better value. I am happy with my car's performance and it is an appreciable upgrade... 10% better power to weight ratio stock, and a much needed 6th gear. With a $500 91-93 octane tune you are at base 2.5 power levels. If the infotainment situation isn't as awful as I imagine it could definitely be a Civic replacement.
I reached the same conclusion. For the price, why? What do I gain on a daily basis? A little more power for passing and merging on the highway? I'm not drag racing in it. The car will be commuting and spend most of its time below 50 mph. In that case, I should choose the model more optimized for that type of driving.
I'll take the power, personally. It's not like 184hp is too much power. It would be the second least powerful car I've owned.
Lame. The second least powerful car I've owned was rated at 63 hp. It's hard to beat that.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on December 25, 2015, 07:35:18 AM
Lame. The second least powerful car I've owned was rated at 63 hp. It's hard to beat that.
How many horsepowers are in a Power Wheels? They should count.
Quote from: Raza on December 25, 2015, 08:24:43 AM
How many horsepowers are in a Power Wheels? They should count.
Probably 1-2. Some of those things are stupidly fast for having hard plastic tires and only braking on the rear axle.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on December 25, 2015, 08:27:47 AM
Probably 1-2. Some of those things are stupidly fast for having hard plastic tires and only braking on the rear axle.
Apparently they have the crappy plastic wheels so that they'll spin when it takes off, otherwise it could break the fragile drivetrain.
Quote from: Raza on December 25, 2015, 07:13:26 AM
I'll take the power, personally. It's not like 184hp is too much power. It would be the second least powerful car I've owned.
Its 30 more hp and about .5 sec to 60? Not worth it
And this part is for you.... I think the 2.5 comes with a bunch of driver assist aids standard.
Plus it's fwd. mpgs > torque steer
Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 25, 2015, 09:52:24 AM
Its 30 more hp and about .5 sec to 60? Not worth it
And this part is for you.... I think the 2.5 comes with a bunch of driver assist aids standard.
Plus it's fwd. mpgs > torque steer
If you're getting torque steer at 184hp, there's a problem.
U can get 2.5L power/torque from the 2.0 for $500.... problem solved
Maybe if it was the 2.0L or a 3.0L V6. But the difference isn't big enough.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 26, 2015, 04:02:48 PM
U can get 2.5L power/torque from the 2.0 for $500.... problem solved
Maybe if it was the 2.0L or a 3.0L V6. But the difference isn't big enough.
Problem solved. Just $500 + your warranty is all it'll cost me? Totally worth it.
Quote from: Raza on December 26, 2015, 04:00:23 PM
If you're getting torque steer at 184hp, there's a problem.
Dude, my Swift torque steered.
Quote from: Raza on December 26, 2015, 04:00:23 PM
If you're getting torque steer at 184hp, there's a problem.
My 2.3L Mazda3 with ~160 hp had a bit of torque steer. Nothing major, but you could feel it tugging at the wheel in the lower gears (and if you let go of the wheel and floored it in 1st it would turn).
Quote from: Raza on December 26, 2015, 04:05:24 PM
Problem solved. Just $500 + your warranty is all it'll cost me? Totally worth it.
You had a problem free 2.0T VW. You will be fine.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 26, 2015, 04:53:17 PM
You had a problem free 2.0T VW. You will be fine.
It wasn't problem free...it was covered under warranty when all of the problems happened.
Quote from: MX793 on December 26, 2015, 04:38:29 PM
My 2.3L Mazda3 with ~160 hp had a bit of torque steer. Nothing major, but you could feel it tugging at the wheel in the lower gears (and if you let go of the wheel and floored it in 1st it would turn).
My Passat did too, at 170HP. But my 200HP Jetta didn't. Considering the Mazda3 is newer and reaps the benefits of newer tech and whatever, I doubt it has torque steer issues.
A silver Mazda3 hatch parked in front of my house last night. Damn, the hatch is so good looking and so much better looking than the sedan (which isn't bad, but the hatch is much better).
Quote from: Raza on December 27, 2015, 07:57:14 AM
Seems like there was a problem.
The active torque vectoring yaw angle managmemt system was out of calibration.