In article d…@bruce.uncg.edu, lim…@claudius.uncg.edu (Funj) writes:
> Can anyone give me some numbers on Mazda’s MX6 GT turbo (1989). Its a
> 2.2 ltr turbo intercooled 12 valve engine.
> I’m looking for hp, 0-60 times, top speed.
—
The following info is taken from Car & Driver’s July 1989 issue:
hp: 185 (Mazda only lists it at 145, but they are incorrect).
Torque: 190 lb-ft
0-60: 7.0
Top: 133
—————————————————————————–
Seth Mleziva #include <std_dsclmr.h>
s…@cadre.com
Cadre Technologies. Inc.
Seth Mleziva (s…@cadre.com) wrote:
: The following info is taken from Car & Driver’s July 1989 issue:
:
: hp: 185 (Mazda only lists it at 145, but they are incorrect).
: Torque: 190 lb-ft
: 0-60: 7.0
: Top: 133
Interesting! Did C&D quote the 185 hp figure, or is it from some
other source? I’ve always been sure that Mazda grossly understated
the hp rating (possibly for insurance reasons), but I’ve never seen
an "actual value" published anywhere.
Mazda’s "official" specs (from a ’91 brochure) are given below;
and I believe all MX-6/626 GT’s from ’88 to ’92 were identical.
hp SAE = 145 @ 4300 rpm
torque = 190 @ 3500 rpm
compr. = 7.8 : 1
displ. = 2184 cc
bore = 3.39"
stroke = 3.70"
The 133 mph top speed seems a bit conservative; I’ve pushed my ’89
MX-6 GT to about 130 mph (indicated) and it was still accelerating
very briskly when I "chickened out". OTOH, some speedo’s are very
inaccurate at the top end — so I don’t know how fast it really is.
(But, it’s still amazingly quick and trouble-free at > 120k miles!)
regards,
Mark
In article s…@hpavla.lf.hp.com, brin…@lf.hp.com (Mark Brindle) writes:
> Interesting! Did C&D quote the 185 hp figure, or is it from some
> other source? I’ve always been sure that Mazda grossly understated
> the hp rating (possibly for insurance reasons), but I’ve never seen
> an "actual value" published anywhere.
The 185 hp number is a C&D estimate.
If you look at the comparisons with some of the other cars in the test
you can see how they arrived at the number. For example the mitsu
eclipse is slightly (0.4 in 0-60, 9 mph in top speed) faster in the
test and is rated at 205 hp, but weighs about 50 lbs less, and the aero-
dynamics are similar (although there are no Cd.s).
It doesn’t take much rocket science to figure that the 145 hp number
probably isn’t right.
—————————————————————————–
Seth Mleziva #include <std_dsclmr.h>
s…@cadre.com
Cadre Technologies. Inc.
Seth Mleziva (s…@cadre.com) wrote:
: If you look at the comparisons with some of the other cars in the test
: you can see how they arrived at the number. For example the mitsu
: eclipse is slightly (0.4 in 0-60, 9 mph in top speed) faster in the
: test and is rated at 205 hp, but weighs about 50 lbs less, and the aero-
: dynamics are similar (although there are no Cd.s).
:
: It doesn’t take much rocket science to figure that the 145 hp number
: probably isn’t right.
Yep, and the 0-60 times don’t begin to tell the whole story because
the MX-6′s off-the-line acceleration is very much traction-limited
rather than power-limited. If C&D’s comparison was against the AWD
Eclipse, the hp-difference is probably even smaller than the 0.4 sec
0-60 spread would suggest.
thanks,
Mark