Mazda3 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is the ford Focus 2.3L engine the same as the Mz3 2.3L? because I'm trying to find a starting point to custom make a turbo. www.jgstools.com/turbo/thk.html makes a Turbo exhaust manifold for the duratec 2.3L so i was wondering if the engines are the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
they are the same basic block (same displacement and bore/stroke) but from there Ford and Mazda went different directions with them, from what i've read they did their own intake systems, variable valve timing etc etc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
Right the basic engine is the same but Mazda did a lot of tweaking to it. The 2.3 in the Focus only makes 143Hp cause it's tuned for emissions where the 2.3 in the 3 or 6 is tuned for power.

Actually the 2.0 in the 3 is pretty much the same engine as the 2.3 , only the 2.3 has a longer stroke.

I'd look for this engine (Known as the Duratec HE) to be the global I4 powerplant thoughout the Ford empire for at least the next decade. I think there is a 1.6 and 1.8 version of it as well. It's really an amazing engine, as good as a Honda engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
raitchison said:
It's really an amazing engine, as good as a Honda engine.
Choke! cough cough... :bigsmile:

The Mazda 2.3 is a nice engine, but I wouldn't hesitate one bit to trade it in for a "160HP" Honda K24. Not only has the K series been phenomenally responsive to aftermarket tuning, it is absolutely the smoothest 4 cylinder engine out there. The one in the Accord and TSX is smoother than many 6-cylinder engines.

This not saying that the Mazda 2.3's engine is a bad engine, just that Honda being a top engine manufacturer is pretty hard to match or beat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
LeeLee said:
raitchison said:
It's really an amazing engine, as good as a Honda engine.
Choke! cough cough... :bigsmile:

The Mazda 2.3 is a nice engine, but I wouldn't hesitate one bit to trade it in for a "160HP" Honda K24. Not only has the K series been phenomenally responsive to aftermarket tuning, it is absolutely the smoothest 4 cylinder engine out there. The one in the Accord and TSX is smoother than many 6-cylinder engines.

This not saying that the Mazda 2.3's engine is a bad engine, just that Honda being a top engine manufacturer is pretty hard to match or beat.
LeeLee, just buy a Honda and go to their forums and tell them how great Hondas are, geez.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
I don't understand why you have an issue with me praising Honda for their strengths.

You don't think I should do that here? If so, why not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
LeeLee said:
I don't understand why you have an issue with me praising Honda for their strengths.

You don't think I should do that here? If so, why not?
Most of the things said here are opinion, on the Mazda 3. We do appreciate your opinion also, but with every contradiction you have mentioned, honda is included. I guess maybe some of us are puzzled why you bought the 3 in the first place instead of a new Si. I also wonder if you work for Honda and are trying to get their name out there to Mazda buyers.

As far as I have seen here, everyone had the choice to buy a Honda Civic Si over the 3 and have chosen against it. Personally, I would have chosen the Civic Si last of all the cars it this class including the Corolla S because I would like a lot of power from an engine from the factory instead of having to make major modifications to it to get anything out of it. Screw putting on a new exhaust and putting in a cold air intake. With the new 3 all I am going to do is change to a K&N air filter (if they ever come out with the bloody thing).

I am unhappy with Honda vehicles because for the money you pay, you get smaller engines with less displacement, less horsepower, and less torque from the factory in cars that are supposed to compete with others in the same class. So, granted Honda engines may be better engines, but until they start daring to put their friggin balls on the chopping block and putting a 2.5L engine in the Si, a 3.5L engine in the Accord, and maybe a nice 6.0 V12 in the NSX for the same price they are charging for all of those cars now, I will look elsewhere and so will everyone else. Isn't that why they are here in the first place?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
Chill, bro. All Lee said was that the K24 is probably the best 4-cylinders on the market, that's all. And you'd have to try really hard to disagree with him on that point. To say the Mazda's 2.3L is as good as Honda's 2.4L is a bit of a stretch. Remember, Honda is first and foremost an engine company. They really know their stuff when it comes to that, especially 4-bangers.

He wasn't knocking the Mazda or anything. We all agree that the 3 is a great car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
mnemonicj said:
Most of the things said here are opinion, on the Mazda 3. We do appreciate your opinion also, but with every contradiction you have mentioned, honda is included.
I don't understand what you've just written, mostly the contradiction part.

mnemonicj said:
I guess maybe some of us are puzzled why you bought the 3 in the first place instead of a new Si. I also wonder if you work for Honda and are trying to get their name out there to Mazda buyers.
Well, the Mazda3 Hatch has 4 doors and more useful room behind the rear seats. It's a more practical car for my growing family. Also, the Civic Si comes with sucky wheels and tires.

mnemonicj said:
As far as I have seen here, everyone had the choice to buy a Honda Civic Si over the 3 and have chosen against it. Personally, I would have chosen the Civic Si last of all the cars it this class including the Corolla S because I would like a lot of power from an engine from the factory instead of having to make major modifications to it to get anything out of it. Screw putting on a new exhaust and putting in a cold air intake. With the new 3 all I am going to do is change to a K&N air filter (if they ever come out with the bloody thing).
Are we talking about the same Civic Si? The Civic Si comes with a 160HP engine. It's a higher reving K20 engine mated to a close-ratio 6-speed. I wouldn't even pick a Corolla S over a Civic EX, let alone the Si. The Corolla S is tuned for soft handling with disconnected steering feel. And while the engine is powerful, it doesn't rev nearly as willingly as the 1.7L engine in the Civic EX. Currently there is no US-spec Civic that can match the performance and handling of a stock Mazda3 without some expensive modifications. The Mazda3 is a superior package from the factory.

mnemonicj said:
I am unhappy with Honda vehicles because for the money you pay, you get smaller engines with less displacement, less horsepower, and less torque from the factory in cars that are supposed to compete with others in the same class.
This is only true with the Civic, an observation I've pounded on to no end on www.vtec.net. The Civic's sales are dropping heavily to the point that Honda is preparing for production cut-backs. And they think this is a systemic problem with the market place rather than an issue with the car itself. That's why they are planning to introduce the a smaller-than-Civic car called the Fit. I think that is going to be a disaster. They need to fix what's wrong with the Civic.

mnemonicj said:
So, granted Honda engines may be better engines, but until they start daring to put their friggin balls on the chopping block and putting a 2.5L engine in the Si, a 3.5L engine in the Accord, and maybe a nice 6.0 V12 in the NSX for the same price they are charging for all of those cars now, I will look elsewhere and so will everyone else. Isn't that why they are here in the first place?
Honda compacts are known for their high reving small displacement engines. It would make as much sense to put a 2.5L big block I4 in a Civic Si as making a diesel Corvette. All they really need to do is bring over the Civic Type-R, with its 200HP, light weight factory wheels, and decent tires. That car wouldn't be the fastest in a straight-line but be a real pleasure to drive in the corners. The current Accord already has 240HP, which is higher than most mid-size cars in the market. They do not need a 3.5L. And the NSX with a 6L V12 will just become another too-heavy bloated-body super car.

Honda is a company that thrives on finess and engineering prowess. They make the most out of the minimum necessary and try to trim every ounce of excess fat. Sometimes this strategy is taken beyond practical extremes and thus we have the 1.7L in the Civic, which is a whopping 0.2 liters larger than engines in a mid-70's Civic. But overall, Honda has leveraged its engineering capability to produce engines that generate impressive power from compact and lightweight package. Compact and lightweight is always good for performance. Honda doesn't build cars that accelerate fast in the first 60 feet because they realize that driving enjoyment takes place at speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
USCMazda3 said:
Chill, bro. All Lee said was that the K24 is probably the best 4-cylinders on the market, that's all. And you'd have to try really hard to disagree with him on that point. To say the Mazda's 2.3L is as good as Honda's 2.4L is a bit of a stretch. Remember, Honda is first and foremost an engine company. They really know their stuff when it comes to that, especially 4-bangers.

He wasn't knocking the Mazda or anything. We all agree that the 3 is a great car.
That is the thing, it could be a great engine, but Honda chokes it and restricts its breathing enough to rob it of a nice torque curve (hence LeeLee's forementioned choke and cough). Granted the curve is flat, but it starts out low and stays there in American cars. I think that Honda could have great engines if they would let them breathe. Here in the US, Honda is afraid of putting out anything really fun for a decent price. I would love to have a TSX, but not for almost $30,000. I would rather buy a Saab 9-3 for that price. I wish they would take a risk and move some cars that are sold in Japan and sell them for a decent price here to the US, but until then, I will look at more power and performance for the price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
raitchison said:
I'm familiar with the K20 series engine and IMO the Duratec HE is definitely it's equal.
In what sense? The JDM K20A is generating 220HP in stock form with a wide and flat torque curve that peaks at 152 ft-lb. The US-spec K20A2 generates 200HP and 142 ft-lb. The K24 in the TSX is a bit more mild and generates 200HP and 166 ft-lb. All three engines are also exceptionally smooth and reliable.

How does the Duratec HE equal the K series?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
mnemonicj said:
That is the thing, it could be a great engine, but Honda chokes it and restricts its breathing enough to rob it of a nice torque curve (hence LeeLee's forementioned choke and cough). Granted the curve is flat, but it starts out low and stays there in American cars. I think that Honda could have great engines if they would let them breathe. Here in the US, Honda is afraid of putting out anything really fun for a decent price. I would love to have a TSX, but not for almost $30,000. I would rather buy a Saab 9-3 for that price. I wish they would take a risk and move some cars that are sold in Japan and sell them for a decent price here to the US, but until then, I will look at more power and performance for the price.
You are faulting the engine for choices that Honda made about which car to put it in. 200HP out of a 2.4L I4 is hardly sedate. I don't think any other normally aspirated engine with 2.4L or less in displacement comes even close. And that's a mild motor by Honda standards.

I would be really happy if Honda dropped the Civic Si and RSX in the US and offered either the Civic Type-R or the Integra Type-R. They are going to need to do something drastic with the Civic next time. There is a real *NEED* for Honda's next compact-rocket to have 200HP. But with Honda turning conservative, we'll probably get a "tuned" version of the K20A3, clocking in at 170HP. And that will probably generate a chuckle from every other compact-rocket driver out there, knowing who they can safely pick on next time at the light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
Lets look atthe market here, right now the Duratec HE is in 4 cars:
Mazda3 - 2.0 & 2.3 148hp/135lb-ft & 160hp/150lb-ft
Mazda6 - 2.3 160hp/150lb-ft
Focus - 2.3 tuned for emissions pushing only 143Hp/149lb-ft
Ranger - tuned for Torque 143Hp/154lb-ft

None of these are "high performance" versions of the engine, something that doesn't exist yet. Indicators are with the Focus 2.3 that 200 N/A HP is completely doable with the 2.3, perhaps even with bolt ons only. I've heard some racers talking about 250 RELIABLE N/A HP in heavily tuned engines without pesky emissions controls.

Let's look at the Si/base RSX 2.0, 160Hp/132lb-ft This impresses me how?

As for smoothness, I've ridden in and driven 7th gen Si's as well as RSX's and don't think they are any more smooth than the Duratec HE, perhaps someone can mount a vibration sensor on each engine to see for sure.

& reliability, the Duratec has only been out in 01 (when it came out in the Ranger) Time will tell but it's a very well engineered engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
raitchison said:
Lets look atthe market here, right now the Duratec HE is in 4 cars:
Mazda3 - 2.0 & 2.3 148hp/135lb-ft & 160hp/150lb-ft
Mazda6 - 2.3 160hp/150lb-ft
Focus - 2.3 tuned for emissions pushing only 143Hp/149lb-ft
Ranger - tuned for Torque 143Hp/154lb-ft

None of these are "high performance" versions of the engine, something that doesn't exist yet. Indicators are with the Focus 2.3 that 200 N/A HP is completely doable with the 2.3, perhaps even with bolt ons only. I've heard some racers talking about 250 RELIABLE N/A HP in heavily tuned engines without pesky emissions controls.
Well, we are not talking about race-tuned engines. But even if you want to do that, K20A2 engines worked on by HyTech Exhaust was measured to produce 264 wheel HP in an RSX-S. Here is the link:
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=101836&page_number=1

raitchison said:
Let's look at the Si/base RSX 2.0, 160Hp/132lb-ft This impresses me how?
It should impress you that the smallest and least powerful variant of the K series engine is as powerful as the largest and most powerful variant of the Duratec HE.

If you are going to make such a lop-sided comparison why even bother? The Integra Type-R uses a 220HP K20A, the RSX-S uses a 200HP K20A2, and the TSX uses a 200HP K24. No stock Duratec HE engine comes close. And until they do, the K series is better.

raitchison said:
As for smoothness, I've ridden in and driven 7th gen Si's as well as RSX's and don't think they are any more smooth than the Duratec HE, perhaps someone can mount a vibration sensor on each engine to see for sure.
Opinions differ... The Mazda3's 2.3L engine is plenty smooth, but the K series is smoother still, especially the K24, which would be a more natural comparison.

raitchison said:
& reliability, the Duratec has only been out in 01 (when it came out in the Ranger) Time will tell but it's a very well engineered engine.
Well, without the benefit of direct empirical data, we can only make a guess about the reliability of new products in the years to come. Here I will just say that Honda has a definite advantage over Ford in reliability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
Well I was just talking about whats available. Last I checked you couldn'd walk into yor local Acura dealer and buy an ITR (or RTR as it would be here) The TSX has more power but it's a higher end car than the 3 (really your comparing an <$20k car to a >$25k car). As for the RSX-S let's make that comparison when the MazdaSpeed Mazda3 comes out.

I've never driven a K24, though I'd expect it to be less smooth than the K20, just like I'd expect the 2.3 Duratec HE to be less smooth than the 20 Duratec HE.

Since the Duratec is a newer engine the only thing we know is that we don't know it's potential yet. It's only here in entry level cars & trucks (or as the base model engine the case of the 6). Really it's a stretch to compare it to the RSX but it's <$25k so it's a grey area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
raitchison said:
Well I was just talking about whats available. Last I checked you couldn'd walk into yor local Acura dealer and buy an ITR (or RTR as it would be here)
I would just point out that we are comparing engines and not the cars that they come in. You claimed that the Duratec HE is the equal of Honda's K-series. To make it fair I limited it to factory engines available in factory cars. The K20A in the JDM Integra Type-R is a factory engine for a stock factory car. It is very much available.

raitchison said:
The TSX has more power but it's a higher end car than the 3 (really your comparing an <$20k car to a >$25k car). As for the RSX-S let's make that comparison when the MazdaSpeed Mazda3 comes out.
Again, we are comparing engines and not the car that they come in. You said that the Duratec HE is the equal of the Honda K series but the evidence clearly points to the contrary. Whether the TSX is a higher end car is not an issue, the fact remains that the K24 is a K series engine with no equal in the Duratec HE lineup.

And why wait for the MazdaSpeed3 to compare against the K20A2 in the RSX-S? We are talking about what engines are available, not what engines are going to built in the future. Heck, I expect to see a K-series variant to produce 240HP in an eventual Honda product but I wouldn't use that as a basis for an argument set in the present. Also, do you really think the MazdaSpeed3 is going to be normally aspirated? I would think not. Given the relatively mild compression ratio of the 2.3, it is a good candidate for forced induction.

raitchison said:
I've never driven a K24, though I'd expect it to be less smooth than the K20, just like I'd expect the 2.3 Duratec HE to be less smooth than the 20 Duratec HE.
How can you claim that an engine is not as smooth as another without having driven it? For one, the K24 has dual balance shafts whereas the K20A2 does not. Read any review of the TSX and you are likely to see praises for the smoothness of the K24. A weaker variant of the K24 is also used in an 2003+ Accord so if you don't have access to a TSX, test drive one of those instead.

I also find your comment about the relatively smoothness of Duratec HE engines to be odd, since the 2.3 has dual balance shafts and he 2.0 does not. And reviews of Mazda3s have also mentioned that the 2.3, while not much more powerful, offers smoother operation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
My assumptions are based strictly on the larger displacement engines which "should" vibrate more with all else being equal. I wasn't taking into account things like dual balance shafts, again I'm no expert on that I', just reporting my own impressions.

Making more power in a production vehicle doesn't mean it's better or that it has more potential. Using your logic the 2.0 Zetec engine in the Focus SVT is "better" than the Duratec HE cause it outputs 170Hp when clearly it's not, the Zetec dates back to the 1980s and is at the outer limits of it's production worthy capabilities in the FSVT.

Her's some more info on the Duratec HE.
http://home.att.net/~biker16/Duratec_HE.html

And Mazda's version:
http://home.att.net/~biker16/mazda_duratec_HE.html

Edit: and here's one more http://forums.modulardepot.com/showthread/t-1873.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
Ya, there are a multitude of parameters involved when comparing engines and performance is not the only metric, even though it is an important one.

Through our discussion we've mentioned reliability, smoothness, power, and potential. Potential is somewhere off in the future and from what've seen the Duratech HE's potential is fairly high, as is the potential for the Honda K-series. Even if we call reliability and smoothness a draw between the two engine series (believe me I want to because I own a Mazda3 ;) ), that leaves the K series with a definite current advantage in power. So three draws and one win for the K series is what I am seeing.

Oh well, in the end, does it really matter? Like you said, Honda has put most of its sexy engines out of reach from the average young buyer, so we'll just have to see what Honda decides to stuff into the next Civic. Here's hoping that it's a 1.8L K-series making 150 to 160HP but I am not holding my breath.

Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
OK good point.

BTW I think the K20 from the Si should be the base engine in the Civic, they should drop the HX altogether cause the Hybrid pretty much removes it's reason for being, drop the Si and bring the CTR, of course Honda isn't likely to listen to me.

P.S. Our cars are like identical, down to the option & everything :)
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top