Mazda3 Forums banner

Do you own a MZR 2.0L or MZR 2.3L?

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just wanted to take a poll to compare between the two :)
I'm mainly interested in the 2.0L (European turbo?... hehehe... who knows) cuz I wanna save the money (yeah, I'm cheap)...

but yeah. lets see how many 2.3L's dominate the board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
I would've gotten the 2.0L, but if you want all the extra gimmicks and the nice smoked tail lights..moonroof etc.. u gotta get the 2.3, so.. :)

I think the difference in pricing for the
2.0L GX + all power / sport package options
and
2.3L GT

was something like $400. And with the GT u get a hell of a lotta more stuff.. tweeters..the nice gauges..etc the decision on which to get is a no brainer unless u REALLY REALLY want the 2.0L :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
really?? that's crazy pricing!

I think, looking at Mazda.ca, that the GX + all power and sport packages is still less than the 2.3L GT.

However, add every single option available on the GX and yeah... the difference ain't much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
In the USA the 2.0 is not even available in the 5 door version. We wanted the five door so there was no choice for us. Given the choice though, I'm sure we would have selected the 2.3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Why would you want to go with that crappy 2.0L anyway, I experience it in my old zx2 and in the protege they loaned out to me when replacing the power steering on my 3. The only difference between those two cars and the 3i 2.0L is 18hp and the rest(the mechanically shakey and all around crappy engine) is the same. To go with anything other than the 2.3L seemed like choosing a Geo Metro over what I got(sorry for the exaggeration and the rant).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,849 Posts
I will own a 2.0 - don't wanna spend $ on the GFX to get a sunroof, have higher payments and higher insurance. I'm also not too fond of the black lights...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
I got the 2.0l and although it's more than enough power for around town, I'm regretting it after going for a ride through the canadian shield. Doesn't have the torque that it should for keeping speed uphill, if you plan to go on any trips.

Still, I wonder how far the $1000 I saved will go towards engine mods... I think headers and a CAI should bring me above the stock 2.3l for power. I think 170 horse should be just enough to keep me happy with this car... but we'll see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
I don't think there should be any consideration between the 2.0 or 2.3L. The real question is whether or not you really want to buy the i sedan versus the s (or their counterparts in Canada). By the time you add some very basic options such as the power package and air conditioning to the i, you are within $800 of the s model. And for that $800, you not only get the larger engine and larger brakes, but a whole slew of small improvements.

If you want a stripper of a car, without power windows, and door locks, or without AC, and money is of paramount concern, then the i makes sense. But if you are shopping in the $16K range, then the i makes little sense.

Analogy: you can spend $40 for a end-zone seat at a local football game, or you can spend $50 for a 50-yard-line seat that also comes with a hot dog and a drink. Hot dog is $2.50 and a drink is $2.50. If these were your only choices, which ticket would you buy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
LeeLee said:
I don't think there should be any consideration between the 2.0 or 2.3L.
Not quite that simple.

For me, I'm spending $300/month on a 4 year lease... that's with air and power door locks w/remote, and a CD player.

The cheapest car I could get with a 2.3 would have been, like, $375 a month at least, over $400 with options. When you're on a budget, that makes a sizable difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
Cleeve said:
LeeLee said:
I don't think there should be any consideration between the 2.0 or 2.3L.
Not quite that simple.

For me, I'm spending $300/month on a 4 year lease... that's with air and power door locks w/remote, and a CD player.

The cheapest car I could get with a 2.3 would have been, like, $375 a month at least, over $400 with options. When you're on a budget, that makes a sizable difference.
Well like I said, if you want to get a stripper car, then the i is a better choice because it saves you money. However, if you had purchased a Mazda 3i with the power package and AC, then the Mazda3s is only $800 (US) more. I think the Canadian situation is similar. I just read someone saying in this thread that it's like $1000 CAD, which I don't even think it is that much. But how does $1000 CAD translate into and extra $75 to $100 in payments per month?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
LeeLee said:
But how does $1000 CAD translate into and extra $75 to $100 in payments per month?
That's the thing... it's not $1000 CAD. Basically, They told me about $400 for the 2.3l, and $350 for the 2.0 with the options I wanted. I wasn't about to pay more than $300/month on a 4 year lease, so they were forced to lower the price until it fit my needs.

Of course, I suppose I could have got them to barter on the price of the 2.3 as well, but like I said, I didn't want to pay more than $300/month for a new car.

That's about $225 USD I guess, I don't know what they're charging in the US for Mazda3's, but I'm happy with the price I got up here with the options they included.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
LeeLee said:
I just read someone saying in this thread that it's like $1000 CAD, which I don't even think it is that much.
There's the problem! Check out the canadian website www.mazda.ca, and you'll see the following info:

Mazda3 comes in 3 flavors up here: GX, GS, and GT.
The GX and GS have the 2.0L as standard equipment with no option to get a 2.3L.
The GT comes with the 2.3L standard equipment.

GSX (2.0 l) /w convenience and air (my car): $17,995.00

Base GT (2.3l) (w/convenience & air standard): $21,345

That's $3350.00 CAD difference, man.
Whoever told you the difference was $1000 in Canada is dead wrong. That's not even including the tax on that extra $3350!

So you can see, my North American brother, that in Canada there's plenty of reasons to go with the 2.0L.

Unfortunately. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
The $1000 price difference is quoted as when you equip the GS with options like the power package and AC, not bare bones.

No one is saying the i/GS isn't a good idea as a bare stripper.

So if a bare stripper is what you bought, great. But of you added some big options onto your i/GS, then the GT was probably not that much more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Leelee's right about the GS. The difference is only 1000 dollars or so when you load up the GS to almost GT level... I think.
The thing is that the base GT includes all the stuff on the GS PLUS the 2.3L PLUS all the extra options.

And indeed, it does come down to budget. But I'm sure the 2.0L isn't an extreme slow poke... is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
dugrant153 said:
Leelee's right about the GS. The difference is only 1000 dollars or so when you load up the GS to almost GT level... I think.
The thing is that the base GT includes all the stuff on the GS PLUS the 2.3L PLUS all the extra options.

And indeed, it does come down to budget. But I'm sure the 2.0L isn't an extreme slow poke... is it?
No sunroof is included with the GT. With the GT the sunroof is only available on the GFX package. This rises the diff. in price alot.
An let's not forget insurance costs between the two. In Canada there can be a nice price jump from GX,GS & GT :shock: (bunch of ripoffs).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
LeeLee said:
The $1000 price difference is quoted as when you equip the GS with options like the power package and AC, not bare bones.

So if a bare stripper is what you bought, great. But of you added some big options onto your i/GS, then the GT was probably not that much more.
The difference between the 2.0l GX and 2.3l GT is $3500 ***when the GX is equipped with*** Air Conditioning, CD player, Power door locks, remote keyless entry, steering wheel audio controls, and illuminated entry.

I wouldn't call that bare bones. Maybe not "richly appointed", but bare bones?
The GX with those options is what I bought. plus, the 2.3L is not an option on the midrange GS. We Canadians have to go GT to get the 2.3L.

Check the Canadian website to see prices and model options, www.mazda.ca

And I'd like to say, the 2.0L is very strong around town, and I certainly haven't found it to be rough running.
It's touring on hills where torque is needed at higher RPMs that I find the 2.0L lacking, otherwise it's a very strong feeling motor, for the record.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
dinu01 said:
It's all about the sunroof :)

Ok I'll stop :)
Moonroof! It's a moonroof!! Mwa hahahaha :wink:


It's touring on hills where torque is needed at higher RPMs that I find the 2.0L lacking, otherwise it's a very strong feeling motor, for the record.
Cleeve, do you mind expanding on this a bit more?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
Cleeve, do you mind expanding on this a bit more?
Sure...

the 2.0L has only, like, 12 less horsepower than the 2.3...

Horsepower can be described as "accelerative force". High horsepower engines will accelerate a car faster (0-to-60 times)

The horsepower of the Mazda3 2.0L engine is more than adequate. Having driven both the 2.0L and the 2.3L, there's definitely a seat-of-your-pants difference, but it's certainly not huge. Both engines accelerate the car well, and I'd never consider the 2.0L a slouch.

The 2.0L has 15 foot/lbs of torque less than the 2.3L, however...

Torque is a little tougher to describe... it's considered to be "twisting force". It's not really how fast a motor can accelerate, but it's a measure of how powerful the force of the motor is at a given RPM. It's the motor's resistance.

I can best describe it with an illustration. Let's say you have two cars in a race:

An acura RSX type X with a 200 Horsepower 142 foot/lbs torque 4-cylinder, and
A mustang GT with 225 horsepower and 220 foot/lbs of torque

They Race; off the hop and 0-60, the RSX takes the lead. This is where horsepower comes in.
Even though the RSX has slightly less horsepower than the mustang, it pulls ahead a bit because the 4 cylinder can wind up a little higher, and mostly because the RSX is lighter than the Mustang.

OK, now both cars are going about the same speed and hit an uphill grade:
This is where the torque comes in. The mustang will pull ahead like crazy because it's good 'ol V8 has GOBS of torque. It's larger displacement contribute to the torque... the engine is more resistant to slowing down than the RSX's small 4 cylinder.
The RSX driver will have to downshift and run at higher RPMs, but he's still not going to catch that 'stang.
Even though both cars have comparable horsepower, the torque will absolutely yank that mustang wayy ahead of the RSX in this case.

Cars with more horsepower usually do better 0-to-60, cars with more torque usually win the quarter-mile races and top speeds.


So that's the long explanation. The Mazda3's 2.0L is great in town and in flat areas of the country. But if you're driving in mountains, or you live in hilly san-fransisco... the 2.0L isn't an option for you. It'll do the job, but the 2.3L is much more suited to the task.

Driving throiugh the hilly canadian shield, I found my Mazda3 2.0L drop LOTS more speed uphill than a car with decent torque would. I basically had to downshift and floor it going up a steep hill to keep my speed.

My last car was an intrepid with a 214HP V6 with lots of wonderful torque. You almost didn't notice an uphill grade driving in that car, you didn't even have to give it more gas most of the time.
.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top