Bhp: Mazda 2 vs Mazda 3

[Brownboy]

Read in Life! section yesterday that the 1.5 M2 has 109bhp but the 1.6 M3 has 107bhp only! Was that a misprint? Or if true, why so?

 

Appreciate any thoughts.

[Hondacrv]

ya i think they are rite... look at the specs from http://www.mazda2.com.sg and http://www.mazda3.com.sg

[Bibill]

Heavy M3

[Cactus]

hmm pardon me but do the weight of the car actually come into consideration when the BHP is derived? I thought its the power the engine is capable of generating.

[Turtlekar]

they are correlated to each other....for example, those cement truck u see on the road all got super big engine one....V6 sia....if only use 1.6L, i think u will see them crawling on the road already lor. ...

 

best part would be the car is as light as possible, with a powerful machine....that's why u see why F1 car weight only approx. 600kg, but they are having 800bhp in their engine... ....sweet

[Yttrium]

Nope.. the power is derived independantly of the weight of the car if a dyno is used. You are right... its a measure of the power of the engine.. nothing to do with the weight of the car.

 

However, there are some gadgets like the Gtech Pro that can derive horsepower indirectly by measuring the acceleration of the car and using that and the entered mass of the car, calculate the horsepower.

Edited January 26, 2004 by Yttrium

[King]

like people said,M3 is heavy than M2

[Paladin]

Read in Life! section yesterday that the 1.5 M2 has 109bhp but the 1.6 M3 has 107bhp only! Was that a misprint? Or if true, why so?

 

Appreciate any thoughts.

 

Do u know the 1.6l version mazda 2 which is selling in Europe only has 100hp?

 

As for the Mazda3...

 

Exracted from AUTOZINE

".... The smallest 1.5-litre (with VVT) produces 113hp but is only reserved for the Japanese market; Europe gets a 1.6-litre instead, also with VVT but produces 105hp only due to tighter emission regulations... "

 

 

Guess it answer your doubt..

[Yansen]

but if the same engine is used on 2 different cars of different mass, wouldn't the lighter car be more powerful as the as power= time taken for work to be done, in this case work= moving the car from pt A to B. bcos of the lighter mass, there is less resistance thus the lighter car would accelerate faster n move from a point to another faster than the heavier one. sorry ah but am i half right?

[Brownboy]

agree with yansen and yttrium. bhp is independent of weight. then there's power-to-weight ratio. this is one measure which many people miss out!

 

eg. if put 100bhp on both mazda2 and mazda 3, and mazda 3 being heavier, then mazda2 will have a higher power-to-weight ratio than mazda3, and it will then have an impact on the torque!

 

so why is the 1.5 mazda2 still have a higher bhp than 1.6 mazda3??? im still puzzled. its definitely not good marketin

[Yansen]

huh.. what i'm saying is that power is related to weight while what he's saying is that power is independent of weight... maybe he is just comparing engine by engine. but m3 n m2 r not using same engine mah, so cant compare bhp with engine as the unchanged variable.

[Paladin]

IMHO the difference is in the ECU. Its the tuning of the engines.

 

 

In real life how many ppl can really tell which car is just a 2 or 3hp more just by butt dyno?

 

Majority of people go for look and how many really know what is horsepower when choosing a car?

[Yttrium]

Yes you ARE right. but like Brownboy has said... the lighter car would have a better power-to-weight ratio lor. But if both engines are identical.. the bhp is the same. BHP/horsepower/power of an engine and power-to-weight ratio of a car are 2 different things.. tho they are related... by the mass of the car.

[Yansen]

so i presume i'm on the topic of power to weight ratio while u r talking abt engine power independently... hehe..

[Yttrium]

Yeah.. coz that's what Cactus was originally talking about mah

 

 

 

hmm pardon me but do the weight of the car actually come into consideration when the BHP is derived? I thought its the power the engine is capable of generating.

[Cactus]

wah.. so many replies after my innocent question..

so it seemed like the answer here tallies with what i had in mind - m2 has got better power to weight ratio then m3, as in how much bhp per tonne.

but then again, not many ppl will feel that little diff in horsepower since its unlikely any1 will b redlining the engine or trying top speed. guess in everyday driving, the torque figures are more relevant and its in this aspect M3 edges out M2.. (146Nm versus 141Nm)

[Bonn]

Mazda got to increase the torque for the M3. The body is just too heavy. If not it won't feel zoom zoom anymore. Cos it will be so slow in picking up.

 

Still the M2 seems more like a good buy as compared to the Jazz. More passenger space and boot space.

[Mondeost220]

if im nt wrong...torque is to tackle the weight resistant of a car, thus therefore even though many 1.6L conti cars doesnt have high horsepower, but they have more torque to bring the heavy weight of the conti bodys to life