pcutt

Over the weekend I was talking to an acquaintance who was bragging about how great his girlfriend's Mazda 3 is. It got me to wondering about advancements and trickle-down-effect in automotive technology over the past 2+ decades. So, in a nutshell, how does a 2008 Mazda 3 5-door hatchback with a 2.3 liter engine compare to an '86 944 NA? I'm mainly interested in the handling characteristics, rather than straight-line acceleration.

Anybody have first-hand experience?

Thanks!

knfeparty

I'm pretty sure they're front-wheel drive.

'Nuff said.

V2Rocket

mazdaspeed 3 is supposed to be quite a bucket of fun, but as for the standard one i imagine its just a standard FWD floater.

pcutt

Yeah, that's the first thing that came to my mind. But I'm still curious about the advancements in technology that might have trickled down to the inexpensive cars over the past 25 years.

Here's my latest experience with FWD. I was driving my GF's 1999 Saab 93 on a curvy and hilly road and I thought for sure the darn thing would tip over because of the high CG. Not only did it understeer like crazy, it seemed to have a 70/30 weight distribution. Ugh. Still, she keeps on telling me how her "sports car" hugs the road like it's on rails.

Spidey944

+1 the MazdaSpeed version is kinda fun. But still FWD and the torque steer from having FWD is too much for me to like it that much.

87 944 C

if she's never driven a sports car, her saab might be a sports car to her.


thte mazda 3 and 6 are well handling cars for rwd. a 3 can outpace a civic in turns, base model to base model. if you want trickle down effect the mx5, though good to begin with, it's simply amazing now.

pcutt

Exactly what's happening. She won't accept my offers to drive my 944 because it lacks airbags, which she's sensitive to because of a bad accident one of her relatives was in.

Scootin159

2008 SCCA Solo Nationals: http://cms.scca.com/documents/solo_r...for%20book.pdf

Best Mazda 3 time (H Stock): 87.766
Best 944 time (E Stock Ladies): 88.015

CarbonRevo

dont have any handling experience, but watch out for the turbo versions. I make 237/248 to the wheels in my '87 951 and I had one that was "stock" walk me from a dig. He had 7 cars on me at 140. I had 2 passengers to his one.

The top turbo model makes 264/280, which is roughly the same to the wheels as my car, yet it weighs about 100-150 more. The car was clearly not stock and more like 300whp. From a 40 roll, it didnt put space between us until 110.

So be careful. They love straight lines. I only raced because I was under the impession it was stock. It wasn't.

ilikemy944

I went to an autox. I blew away every single 944/951/944S2 that came on street tires.
At the time, I had 150 miles on the Mazda3.

The thing handles like you would not believe for a fwd car and I would have another.

The interior is built like a piece of crap. That is a major fault. Oh, and it was in the shop 4 times in the 9 months I had it.

eniac

Wait until the Mazda is 20 years and THEN make the comparison. Heck, to really see which is better compare that 20 year old Mazda to what would then be a 40 year old 944...that is IF you are able to find a single Mazda that is still running.

There's a whole lot more into Porsches then just performance, much of which still has not been adopted by many manufacturers.

Speaking of adopted "new" technology, I was watching a show...umm "Ultimate Factories" I think it was called, anyway they were showing the factories and building procedures for the Z06 corvette. When assembling the drivetrain they commented on how the transmission was really a transaxle mounted in the rear of the car through a torque tube. Then they pointed out this unique design was exclusive to the corvette.

Now that really made me laugh smugly since the Z06 is supposedly the best GM can do and it's using designs from the cheapest Porsches of 25+ years ago.

Tom R.

The OP mentioned trickle down. That's the point. The technology that trickled down over the last 20 years is amazing.

Take a look at what say 16k will get you today:
a nice twenty year old 951S with under 50K miles making under 240hp
A nice fifteen year old 968 with under 50K miles making under 240hp
A nice three year old 350Z with under 30k miles making 275 or 300 hp
A nice six year old vette with under 75k miles making 350 or 400hp.

Look at the new cars. Torque steer is bad, I know, and grip in the wet is good. So it is a compromise.

If you dont like the interior of the MX3, check out the volvo v30. nicest mazda interior on the market.

I think a new mazda will give a porsche a run for its money for five years. then you have a toss away mazda, and a ready for another restoration porsche. both are good.Newsflash: GM had a rear transaxle car a decade and a half before Porsche invented it.

Newsflash: The 928 was the most expensive porsche designed porsche when it came out. If memory serves me right, it also has a transaxle, and a V8 that is very similar to the chevy V8. It is similar because it is a known fact that porsche had a bunch of GM V8s around when they were designing their first V8?

Lets not forget the cheapest porsche of 25 years ago started life as an audi about 30 years ago.

87 944 C

under 16k. ok, 1992 dodge stealth tt, with awd and aws, add to that 320hp and 315tq, 0-60 of around 5.1, and quater in low 13's, that'll run you around 5-7g, add another 1500 and you're looking at 400hp, easy. the only flaws to buying an older car like that, no warrenty, car's been abused likely, mechanical failure is expected. but any person can take even a 951 spend a few grand then add a few g's in updates/upgrades. that's the one reason i prefer older cars, yes they tend to have more headaches, but they are all different, and the aftermarket is strong, and for most parts are cheap.

that factory thing, i saw it too, i laughed, i said outloud to myself, that's funny i could've sworn my 944 has that same setup, o well. of course very sarcastically. i will hand it to chevy for making a damn nice car in the z06.

azbanks

I got a 86 951 I will sell you for 16K

I bought my 86 for $5500. If I put another $10K into it, it'll make a bit more than 240 HP.

mbonner

Look at the Mazda RX7s, I had a 84 GSLSE which was much faster than my '83 944 and the car had no issues. I sold it to help pay for repairs to my 844 when the timing belt wore thin and fell off. Having got the 944 running again, $2,400,00 poorer the dratted thing caught fire while I was doing 100 kms, 5 days later, and that was that. Faulty FRP dropped gasoline onto the exhaust manifold, pop, that was that, pretty scary, on flames at speed, with no clutch or brakes.
So, as had had good luck with RX7s, I have owned four, I took the insurance money for the 944 and bought a 88 Mazda RX7 convertible. So it is the same comfort, speed, handling, braking and fuel economy as the 944, but it does not leave me stranded like that 944 did.
I'd like a little more get-up-and-go so I think I'll give the 88 Rex to my youngest daughter and buy a '90 RX7 Turbo II, same as a 951, but you can get a good one for half the price of a 951, and it will probably cost less to maintain.
Mike