Stock 3rd Gen times

[Lil Freek]

I was just looking around on the Mazda.ca website and thought that some of you might wanna have these details. these are Stock details and are probably pretty precise

Acceleration (0 - 100km/h(63mph); sec):
1.6L models - MT: 11.4 / AT: 13.3
2.0L models - MT: 10.4 / AT: 11.9

Top Speed (km/h) [multiply by .63 to get the MPH] :
1.6L models - MT: 178 / AT: 165
2.0L models - MT: 195 / AT: 176

Acceleration (1/4 mile; sec):
1.6L models - MT: 18.2 / AT: 19.1
2.0L models - Mt: 17.4 / AT: 18.2

just thought i'd share

[blue LEDz]

woowooooooooooo

yeah buddy, add in 200 lbs for a system and my 1.6L auto is probably doing a 20 second 1/4 mile

[Lil Freek]

hahaha. add in well over 200 for my sorry ass, and another 75 for my system.


but the 1/4 is probably on stock tires with stock EVERYTHING... including a human body (of course).. so even with some regular high perf. tires, that time would improve a little (if you're as good as their tester)

[McCorkle]

woowooooooooooo

yeah buddy, add in 200 lbs for a system and my 1.6L auto is probably doing a 20 second 1/4 mile

Hmm lets see. Add 200lbs for my sorry ass, add in another 150lbs for the system. Then we got some heavy ass 18s. Subtract 20lbs for the carbon fiber hood. Lets see that would mean I would run about a 45 sec quarter mile.

[Lil Freek]

alright... you should go to Kent and i'll bring my mountain bike... we'll have a good ole fashion drag race!

[Kelly]

112 mph top speed, 1.6,,,haha, maybe with a 5 mile stretch.

[Lil Freek]

Yeah.. that's just top speed.. not for any certain distance..

[NegatiZE]

Acceleration (0 - 100km/h(63mph); sec):
1.6L models - MT: 11.4 / AT: 13.3

Top Speed (km/h) [multiply by .63 to get the MPH] :
1.6L models - MT: 178 / AT: 165

Acceleration (1/4 mile; sec):
1.6L models - MT: 18.2 / AT: 19.1

::hangs head in shame::

[jnorion]

Man, that just sucks

[Mazdavatar]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
*dies laughing*

[mixmaster_matt]

at least my 1.6 is faster than an automatic one

[bz3n]

I guess people with 1.8 will find this thread useless

[Lil Freek]

yeah.. you're mutants!!
the site only takes into consideration the 2003 models...
so just put yourself in the middle of all the stats.. or a little above the middle.

[protetype]

112 is inaccurate. i've taken mine to 125, easily without nitrous. only about 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile. and thats with the heavy ass 17's on it. i wouldve loved to see what it wouldve done in the quarter without all the tools and spare set of wheels in the back, with some tires that weren't both showing metal. 16.5 at altitude, with a 65 shot. slow.. but conditions say it wouldve been a bit faster.

[bougha]

I guess people with 1.8 will find this thread useless

German magazine Autobild has also tested 3rd gen Proteges. Stock with MT

1.8L:
top speed (km/h):194
0-100 km/h (s):9,5

2.0L:
top speed (km/h):203
0-100 km/h (s):9,3

http://www.autobild.de (suche=search)

Maybe those Canadians need some driving lessons

//edit:forgot to mention that euro 1.8L has 114hp vs. your 122hp. Does anyone know what makes the difference between those engines?