Is the 2.3L engine truly worth the extra $700 for it's added performance?
Mazda 2.0 vs Mazda 2.3 Engine
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
the 2.0 and the 2.3 are the same block and bore. The only difference is the stroke. On the 2006 models, the 2.3l was rated at 160hp and the 2.0L at 150hp. To me, 10hp is not worth the drop in mileage.
I just wish the 2.0L was an option in my mazda6. I'm stuck with the 2.3L.
I just wish the 2.0L was an option in my mazda6. I'm stuck with the 2.3L.
a change in the stroke will also bring down the useable TQ range and up the max TQ.
Has anyone actually driven a 2.0 and 2.3 side by side and compared the differences?
Not sure, but isn't the Mazda 2.3 pretty much the same as the Ford Duratec 2.3? If not, what's the difference? I've heard it's a pretty solid engine.
same engine.
The 2.3 is worth the 700 if you are performance oriented.
I have driven both in the focus form.
I ended up getting the cheapest focus possible with ac so
I have the 2.0 its plenty fast as my focus is also the Lightest focus model
I get 28-32mpg with spirited but not abusive driving.
The 2.3 is worth the 700 if you are performance oriented.
I have driven both in the focus form.
I ended up getting the cheapest focus possible with ac so
I have the 2.0 its plenty fast as my focus is also the Lightest focus model
I get 28-32mpg with spirited but not abusive driving.
The 2.3 hauls my ranger and two quads on a trailer without trouble so its certainly a gutsy engine.
JHZR2
Staff member
LOL, whatever. Economy cars arent performance oriented, regardless of how well they corner or whatever.
JMH
My point is if you are one of these people who put 500$ on an airbox and exhaust etc.. then 700$ for the bigger engine makes sense.
I dont race mine.. its bone stock... ok ok I put in better windshield wiper fluid that doesnt freeze in the morning...
I guess you think autocross isnt racing either.
I dont race mine.. its bone stock... ok ok I put in better windshield wiper fluid that doesnt freeze in the morning...
I guess you think autocross isnt racing either.
I recently test drove a 2007 Fusion with the 2.3 and auto tranny
, they didn't have any sticks on the lot. I gotta say if you're going for the auto tranny I'd get the 2.3. As it was it was a lame performer compared to my 1996 Contour with the 2.0L Zetec and 5 speed manual tranny. I'm sure the 2.0 with the manual tranny would be a blast to drive and totally different than the auto tranny model. Just my
.
Whimsey
Whimsey
I had a 2004 3i and the 2.0 worked very well in this car, except for an unusually tall 2nd gear which left you with nothing when turning onto side streets, etc. It was a completely loaded 'i' so all I was missing was the 2.3 (and leather / nav only available on the 2.3 S sedans and hatchbacks which I would never want anyway). I didn't find the price gap to be worth 10 hp, and I didn't care for the "S" taillamps on a strato blue sedan, so it turned out to be a perfect car for my tastes. Added some 17x7.5 aftermarket wheels and 225 series tires and it performed very well.
JHZR2, go drive one, they are very impressive handling vehicles, despite the fact that their main competators are your stereotypical economy car. I've driven one and was very impressed with how performance minded this little car was. Good price tag too... it's not your ordinary economy car. If you want the 2.3L in an orginary economy car, go look at the Ford Focus with the 2.3L
I have the 2.0L w/5spd. On the whole not a bad engine. It will easily get 40 mpg on the highway without much effort. However, could be better around town (I average about 23-24 mpg even though I don't drive it hard) Could be geared better in my opinion (tall 2nd gear as CBD mentioned).
Don't imagine that the 2.3L would be a noticeable improvement in power, especially in day to day driving around town.
Don't imagine that the 2.3L would be a noticeable improvement in power, especially in day to day driving around town.
- Status
Similar threads
