'All new' Mazda 3 has a 2-litre NA petrol engine in 2 states of tune.
The first is 120bhp@6000rpm (210Nm@4000), 0-60 8.9s, 119g/km CO2
The second 165bhp@6000rpm (210Nm@4000), 0-60 8.2s, 135g/km CO2
Now both engines are the same displacement and run 14.0:1 compression.
It would appear to me that the 120hp variant is either a massively detuned version of the more powerful car (?with a smaller throttle) that goes flat after 4000rpm, or Mazda are telling porky pies to 'upsell' the 165bhp version.
Any techy-geek ideas?
|
Didn't MINI do this with their's?
IIRC the appropriate EMU could be purchased for a fraction of the cost.
|
Wasn't such a big difference, but I think the original MINI One was 90hp vs the 'Cooper' with 115hp so maybe it's simply down to mapping rather than hardware I guess.
A bit like having cruise control 'added' to your car when it's already capable but just needs the software unlocked and a button stuck on the dash/wheel.
|
Hmm... 155lbft (210Nm) @ 4000rpm = 118bhp at 4000rpm.
Suggests the torque dumps right off after 4kprm so would drive like a 120hp turbo diesel.
Or Mazda are under-rating the lower powered 2.0 petrol.
|
Looks like you can get the engine in the 6 in two states of tune - the 165ps and 145ps.
Looks interesting - good Co2 figures.
|
Umm...
The CO2 figures and mpg etc are showing as exactly the same for the 100ps 1.5 and the 120ps 2.0?
|
>>>A bit like having cruise control 'added' to your car when it's already capable but just needs the software unlocked and a button stuck on the dash/wheel. <<<<
This, (as a concept), is nothing new. IBM were doing it with mainframes in the 70s. Your £100,000 upgrade took a few minutes - however you probably had to then buy peripherals to make make full use of the upgrade capability.
Zero can probably give a few real examples.
|
>> >>>A bit like having cruise control 'added' to your car when it's already capable but
>> just needs the software unlocked and a button stuck on the dash/wheel. <<<<
>>
>> This, (as a concept), is nothing new. IBM were doing it with mainframes in the
>> 70s. Your £100,000 upgrade took a few minutes - however you probably had to then
>> buy peripherals to make make full use of the upgrade capability.
>>
>> Zero can probably give a few real examples.
They came in ranges with a maximum horsepower and features. And yes it was just a microcode feature to update the horsepower from lowest to smallest. And your software rental charges went up in step as well. If you wanted to upgrade out of the range it was usually a swap of the frames. They also included additional "engines" to off load work (like a cryptographic feature) that was switch in by microcode.
You had NO chance of doing a hooky upgrade, we had the things linked by modem to home base.
The "buy some peripherals to qualify" sales technique was outlawed as illegal bundling and against anti trust laws.
Later mainframes are a mix of code upgrades and plug in cards for upgrades.
|
ICL did the same with their mainframes. I think the Series 39 actually had three read hardware models but sold for different prices across many more price points. You paid more for the faster ones. Other mainframe manufacturers let you upgrade temporarily to a faster setup when needed (I think Amdahl did this) and it was all done remotely. Customers knew the score though - no deception.
Similar for capacity on demand now. Many companies sell fully loaded systems and you only pay for the extra components when you switch them on. IBM certainly does this as do others.
|
Back to the original post, since the engine was normally aspirated it's going to be mostly state of tune. Upgrades for brakes might also apply.
But for some wanting a petrol car with lower emissions for car tax or company car BIK then the detuned version will appeal. I don't see the problem.
|
|
Many manufacturers offer similar-it's usually done with different camshaft and/or manifolds/throttle body.
|
Mazda Mazda 3 - 13 2.0 Petrol engine stats - bathtub tom
