Upping the zoom: Mazda 2 gets more powerful diesel option
Mazda 2
If you think that 68hp for the Mazda 2 1.4-liter diesel isn't enough power, here's good news: Mazda has announced that the 2 will get the 1.6-liter 90hp diesel that you can find in the Fiesta, the European Fusion, and several PSA models. Torque on the 1.6L is rated at 205 Nm (151 lb-ft), so the little subcompact will improve its acceleration figures, which are currently a sluggish 0 to 100 km/h (62mph) in 11.4 seconds. What remains at a good level is fuel consumption, rated at 4.2 l/100km (56mpg U.S.) while CO2 emissions are kept at 112 g/km. Not bad. Prices for the revamped 2 have not yet been announced.
Gallery: 2008 Mazda2
[Source: Autoweek Netherlands (via Le Blog Auto)]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
marz 10:02AM (10/14/2008)
Since when is 11 sec.0 - 60 sluggish? The 2 best selling cars in the US right now, Civic & Corolla have 0-60 times of 1 sec. slower. We need to stop this stupid obsession with speed. I bet 90% of drivers never use more than 40% of the capabilitiy of their vehicles.
Reply
BoneHeadOtto 10:55AM (10/14/2008)
"The 2 best selling cars in the US right now, Civic & Corolla have 0-60 times of 1 sec. slower. "
where do you get that stat from? Check the car mags and you will see 0-60 times much faster.
here is a link for an 07 civic 0-60 in 7.7 seconds.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/budget_rides/the_quickest_cars_of_2007_less_than_20_000_feature+t-sixth_place:_2007_honda_accord+page-4.html
the reason why some of these slow 0-60 times are often unsafe, is when you load up the car with people and gear the once 2200lb car now weighs roughly 3000-3200 and the 0-60 gets dangerously slow for entering the highway.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:39AM (10/14/2008)
When people call speeds from 7-9 seconds sluggish, I say their crazy too. But 11.4 seconds is sluggish, and no, a US Civic isn't anywhere NEAR that slow.
It should be against the law to use the word "zoom" to describe a car with this little pep.
Mike!!ekiM 2:19PM (10/14/2008)
Excess power capacity = poor gas mileage.
People, buy a stop-watch. 0-60 in 12 seconds can in no way be called slow.
why not the LS2LS7? 5:50PM (10/14/2008)
It's slow.
Sorry, if you have to wring your car out all the way just to do a 11.4, the car is slow.
No, people may to 0-60 in 11.4 or more much of the time, but that doesn't mean they don't need or want more. And it doesn't mean they'd enjoy maxing their engine out just to get the acceleration they are used to.
BoneHeadOtto 10:03PM (10/14/2008)
"Excess power capacity = poor gas mileage.
People, buy a stop-watch. 0-60 in 12 seconds can in no way be called slow."
not really true. Excess power means its easier to go 0-60 in 12 seconds and you will do so while using less gas. Just look at the mpgs of a corvette. It can be driven quite efficiently. There was a recent article where a prius lapped a track as fast as it could and an M3 kept its pace. The M3 got better gas mileage.
another case and point. The Cube vs the xB
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=124845
Cube is under powered and manages worse mileage than the xB because the engine has to work so hard to move the car at a sane speed.
ryan 10:28AM (10/14/2008)
I second that notion.
Oh, and Japan needs to jump on getting some of these cars into THEIR OWN market!
Reply
marz 12:57PM (10/14/2008)
My bad, I thought I remembered automatic Civic/Corolla being about 12 sec. but they're about 10 sec. 0-60 according to Edmunds. Still not that far off & plenty fast for 90% of the population. When was the last time you saw the average person 0-60 in 11 sec. in day to day driving?
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 5:52PM (10/14/2008)
Edmunds actually says 9.6. By rounding, you cut the difference from 1.8 seconds to 1.4.
Mark 5:21PM (10/14/2008)
My 1979 RX-7 has a 0-60 time of 11.5.
Reply
Dan 12:17PM (10/15/2008)
This is what we call choice... if someone is willing to pay for a faster car (and the gas to go with it), then that's fine.
If someone is happy with a car that takes 11 seconds to get to 60, that's also fine.
But don't just assume that because YOU'RE ok with it, EVERYONE else in the world should also be ok with it.
If everyone was told "in order to reduce gas consumption EVERY car from next year onwards is going to have a best possible 0-60 time of 11 seconds, because lets face it, who NEEDS to go faster than that?", then cars would be incredibly boring, there would be little reason to choose between different manufacturers and models, and most automakers would go out of business as a result.
There would also be a sudden increase in used car prices, and a rush to purchase cars that accelerate at a decent speed.
Reply
Mike 2:26PM (10/15/2008)
I agree - 0-60 in 11+ seconds is quite slow for a car.. of any size..
but this "dangerous for highway" is plain garbage.
If you sit on an overpass and watch - you'll see corvette drivers, 335 bmw drivers AND Prius drivers all stop at the merging section of the freeway. It DOESN'T say STOP.. it says YIELD/MERGE...
If your going along.. at 40mph..and have to get up to 60mph to merge with traffic.. ALL cars can do it in time (except maybe smart car). Under 11 is ok.. under 9 is better.. but not necessary.
It's 95% driver / 5% car...
Reply