What are some reasons you guys have why the MX3 never became

Grants · Post by **Grants** » September 8th, 2005, 12:16 am

They didn't release a 4 cyl over here at all - just the K8.

Gro Harlem · Post by **Gro Harlem** » September 8th, 2005, 2:13 am

In response to PATDIESEL (no point in quoting that book of a post):

First off, the Protege is MAZDAS NUMBER ONE SELLING CAR since like 1999. the 3rd gen protege sold very well. The 90-94 sold very well as well. the 2nd generation is the only one that didn't sell quite as well but it wasn't bad (the 626 sold better during that period for good reason..it was a better car).

The mx-3 made mazda no money, they probably took a loss on this car actually. They sold something like 100,000 in north america? thats pathetic for any car. Ford sells that many focus's in a MONTH, not the 4-year run that the MX3 went for.

And as for the V6 engine....it wasn't the most brilliant plan. I don't have much against the K8 as an engine. All K-series are a decent engine design...compact, nice VRIS system, quad-cam, 24-valve, sounds good on paper, but WHY DID THEY EVEN MAKE A 1.8 VERISON!? They could've easily put a detuned KF-ZE with like 140-150hp and the car would've had more torque and been much more exciting.

Have you even driven a NX2000? They have the SR20DE 4-banger..and GOOD LORD is it faster than a K8 MX3, by almost a half a second in the 1/4 mile. Why? It has torque...the mx-3 did not. Then again it didn't sell for s--- either probably b/c of its styling and low production numbers.

It seems the goal of the MX3 was to launch mazdas new K-series V6 family. It came out in 91 in japan, first model to have a K-series V6, followed by the 626/MS8 cars a year later.

It would've been more feasible for them to had just shoved a 1.8 BP into the car, the engine that had been used in the protege since 89' (in japan), maybe with performance cams or something to give it 135-140ish hp, or hell a B6T or figuring a way to put a BPT stock to compete with the turbo eclipse or something.

Either way, one of the reasons I like my mx3 is b/c it was a failure for mazda (lots of cars in the mid 90's were...since mazda was retarded with their marketing, etc. at the time). They are pretty damn rare, I hardly ever see any on the road and lots of people don't know what it is. The fact it is sorta easy to get parts at the junkyard, and they are cheap as hell when you do buy them make this car cheaper to maintain than other rare cars (like a corrado). Since it shares its basic chassis with the BG protege/escort/kia sephia chassis, suspension & brake stuff is cheap, and since it shares its basic engine setup with the probe, finding gaskets and other stupid crap for the V6 is cheap & easy.

Its a nice mix between the econo BG chassis's and the larger, more muscular GE chassis (probe/mx6/626) cars. And with the IMO pretty decent aftermarket, you can customize it however you like, for the most part.

Nd4SpdSe · Post by **Nd4SpdSe** » September 8th, 2005, 8:50 am

Gro Harlem wrote:Since it shares its basic chassis with the BG protege/escort/kia sephia chassis, suspension & brake stuff is cheap, and since it shares its basic engine setup with the probe (don't forget Mx-6, 626 and Millenia), finding gaskets and other stupid crap for the V6 is cheap & easy.

Its a nice mix between the econo BG chassis's and the larger, more muscular GE chassis (probe/mx6/626) cars. And with the IMO pretty decent aftermarket, you can customize it however you like, for the most part.

Don't forget too that you can use a few styling pieces from a Miata.

Honnestly, it's scary how many differnt car we can grab parts from.
Maybe that's what the Mx-3 is, a sort of transition car between an older and an upcoming new platform, almost a production prototype. With the amount of KL's out there, I'm sure all of us wondered why ever would Mazda release a 1.8l v6 for one specific car, maybe the 1.8 WAS the first K-Series, the 2.0 and 2.5l were perfected from it.

Mazda's always been different, from the smallest production v6 (at the time) to Rotary and Miller Cycle engines, they've always done things differently, which is why it's nice to have a Mazda, it's nice to have something that'varies from the norm, which suites my personality perfectly

PATDIESEL · Post by **PATDIESEL** » September 8th, 2005, 10:00 am

Of course the Protoge was the best selling car Mazda had at the time, I never said differently. What I was pointing out was that the MX-3 is not a Protoge "boxy, 4 door, performs ok, good milage" kinda car. The Protoge sells more cars b/c it is the most mainstream car Mazda has had for a long time.

How would they put a KF-ZE in a car when it didn't exist in 92'??? Also I don't see how that would have helped Mazda in any way. To retool the facotry to drop KFs in the car, make new harnesses etc, etc. that would have made a negative profit car even worse. I do understand the argument for the BP motor over the B6, but again the BP wasn't in use untill 93' in the US (well after the MX-3 was a prodution car) Also we have seen that almost all Jap makers keep the better engines for their market. That is why we didn't get he BP untill much later than the Japan market.

Again, I don't expect you guys to understand the insurance industry, but believe me I do. When I said that "maybe" the reason Mazda didn't use the KL instead is b/c the insurance WOULD have cost a good bit more. So a second reason why the KF would have been out of the question even if it were a motor of Mazda's in 92'.

We also need to consider that eventhough Mazda didn't have the BP or KF in 92' in the US. They really only had engine choices from when the design of the MX was being created. They found their options to be lacking and thus created the KL and K8. The KF was a detuned KL to help with emisions...

As for the Mustang comparison: that is exactly what I was talking about in the first place, your not refuting my point but backing it. Ford makes a 4 and 6 cyl version so that if you want the look, but not the power and insurance costs then you have an option. That was why the B6 was an option. You can't say that the Mustang did it better by having a high HP version, the K8 was pretty high for a compact of it's time. Maye not the most HP, but deffinately up there in the top ranks. Also the MX-3 and MX-6 were too close for a manufacturer to have in one line-up. I understand that they were different in may ways, but they were also very similar in more ways than they were different. Niether offered much utility, neither offered a class leading HP engine, offered four doors, better than average gas milage (which by the way was much less of a selling point in the early 90s than it was in the 80s or now) and both were in the higher end of the price range for their class.

Juan, what sports coupes had more power in 92'? The NX and Scorcio (sp?) are the only ones that I know of that were sold in the US. Also the 95' Celica (of which I own a 94) use a 2.2L. That again proves my point that the 1.8L needs to be considered for what it is a 1.8L. The V6 part really doesn't mean much. About the insurance if they were to use the larger KL, I own an insurance agency and you'd be suprised how many parents buy a car for their kid and then find out that the insurance is too high and sell the car for a four banger economy car.

Why are some knocking he milage on a K8? Mine got 25 mpg average. That is pretty good for a 92' designed car that had a more performance minded motor.

As for the RX7 and RX8 comparison. Look at all model rotaries that Mazda has produced. They always have less HP in the new model than they did at the end of the last one. Also the RX8 has WAY more power than the NA RX7 so your point is really not true at all. Once they turbo or super charge the RX-8 it will have the most HP of any rotary to date (unless restricted by some laws)

Sure the K8 might be a weaker V6, but it is a Very small V6. What do you really expect of Mazda? A 200 HP 1.8L V6. Again, I must state that this is a V6 for its smoother than 4 banger power curve and nnot so much its power potential. A same size V6 and 4 banger have the same potential for power (basically, using physics) The drawbacks for a v6 will be greater internal weight and more parts that can break, the gains are more power from more cams, smoother power curve and a better nestalgia feeling from the performance car buyer.
Lastly, I'm not comparing our cars to exotics. Not even close. What I'm showing you is that the more cylinders a motor has the smoother the ride will be.

Nd4SpdSe · Post by **Nd4SpdSe** » September 8th, 2005, 12:43 pm

PATDIESEL wrote:Sure the K8 might be a weaker V6, but it is a Very small V6. What do you really expect of Mazda? A 200 HP 1.8L V6. Again, I must state that this is a V6 for its smoother than 4 banger power curve and nnot so much its power potential. A same size V6 and 4 banger have the same potential for power (basically, using physics) The drawbacks for a v6 will be greater internal weight and more parts that can break, the gains are more power from more cams, smoother power curve and a better nestalgia feeling from the performance car buyer.
Lastly, I'm not comparing our cars to exotics. Not even close. What I'm showing you is that the more cylinders a motor has the smoother the ride will be.

I have a magazine in my filing cabinet siting at my parents house, but basically if I remember right, one of the reasons why the K8 was choosen because it was smoother. The competitions 4cyl's needed to be balanced. They also complimented on the sound of the exhaust. (I'll get the article when i go back home next week)

I guess Mazda perfers smooth running engines, check out what they do with their rotaries:

To demonstrate to a group of reporters the reduced vibrations of the new engine, testers placed a glass of wine atop an engine, then revved it to 5,000 rpm, which they said would be the typical speed on a Japanese highway. The wine barely rippled.

http://www.rotorhead.ca/topic.php?fl=te ... t=assembly

RaverChankoMX3 · Post by **RaverChankoMX3** » September 8th, 2005, 6:26 pm

Some valid points:

The price
GS model being the only attractive option
Bad Mazda marketing, Honda's CRX won that battle
Car design. . .more popular in EU and Canada

You could also throw in that uniqueness of the engine. I know that answer could go either way, but I could see that detering someone to opting for an easier 4cyc engine. Stock CRX engine is tiny, neat, and gets the job done. (And by job done, I'm not talking about 1/4 mi. paul walker)

PATDIESEL · Post by **PATDIESEL** » September 8th, 2005, 7:08 pm

At the time didn't the CRX still have the 1.5L that produced just under 100 HP? They were still fast though.

neutral · Post by **neutral** » September 8th, 2005, 7:44 pm

CRX also had benefit of outstanding gas mileage compared to the MX-3 4 banger. Had a friend who I remember got something like 44+ mpg highway mileage w/mtx.

Gro Harlem · Post by **Gro Harlem** » September 8th, 2005, 10:29 pm

PATDIESEL wrote: Again, I don't expect you guys to understand the insurance industry, but believe me I do. When I said that "maybe" the reason Mazda didn't use the KL instead is b/c the insurance WOULD have cost a good bit more. So a second reason why the KF would have been out of the question even if it were a motor of Mazda's in 92'.

We also need to consider that eventhough Mazda didn't have the BP or KF in 92' in the US. They really only had engine choices from when the design of the MX was being created. They found their options to be lacking and thus created the KL and K8. .

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING!?!?!?

First off, BP's date back to 1986!!!!!! do some research. IT EXISTED. Why the hell did 89-94 Protege/Familias come with them if they didn't exist?

Another thing...have you ever read the K-series press release, dated back in 1991?

It outlines the new K-series engines, including K8, KF and KL. THEY ALL EXISTED AT THE SAME TIME! THe engines were basically all engineered simultaneously with the exception of the KJ which isn't relevant anyways.

IF mazda were smart, they would've only engineered a 2.0 and a 2.5 liter V6, not a 1.8 as well. 3 engines VS 2 = higher R&D costs, more time consuming, among other things. If they had just developed 2 engines (which made sense) then we'd be fortunate to have a Kf or something similar in our car, not the torqueless K8 ttrash.

PATDIESEL · Post by **PATDIESEL** » September 9th, 2005, 1:45 am

Hey Gro, why don't you stop wetting your diaper for a minute and back up what you are saying. From what I know the KF was not a part of the original K series motors. The reason the K8 was 1.8L was to get under alot of insurance price increases at the over 2.0L mark.
As for the BP, I stand corrected. All I could find last night were the production stats of the Maita. Today I found on club protoge that the BP was used much earlier in the Protoge. So I guess that one doesn't amke much sense to us.
However how do you call 115 ft/lbs of torque in a motor that had only 130 Hp torqueless. Have you ever seen a dyno of a K8, they have a pretty good torque curve. I know it doesn't feel like it, but that was the great thing about the K8. It was the smoothest motor I've ever driven by a LONG shot. I understand that this part of our conversation is purely a perspective debate, but you have to say that the K8 was darn good for it's size. I'll give you that a 2L would have been a better option, but I just don't think it was a manufactured motor untill later.

Thunderstorm · Post by **Thunderstorm** » September 9th, 2005, 4:14 pm

A lot of truth has been said about the MX-3 and why it didn't make it as a super popular car. Some of that truth has been scathingly painful, some of it straight to the point - (Nice one Famine) and a lot of other members have told the truth as they see it - and in many ways they are right too.

However, the following facts are equally true, from the eyes of an MX-3 owner at least (who has barely owned his MX-3 for a year).

When my 1988 Honda Accord began to fall apart (body wise that is - the 160HP DOHC poweerplant was still going strong at 148,000 - no smoke either) I decided to start searching for another set of wheels to buy.

I wanted something smaller. Another Honda? A civic perhaps?
The Honda Civics I was interested in were too common, too trashed, too high mileage. And rather too expensive for what was left of them second hand value wise.
They just didn't hack it. Didn't want another Accord. Wanted a coupe too. Specifically.

Then my eye caught the shape of the Mazda 323F Lantis series, that seriously bulbous saucer shaped ellipsoid that looked like it had nipped back in time from the mid 21st century to torment us in the boring late 20th century.

It wasn't mainstream, it was an acquired taste, but HELL, I loved it to bits.
Here I was in the 21st century and most cars still looked like they were 20th century antiques.
What? No Hovercars "a la Jett Jackson" in the 21st Century then? What a con!!

Anyway, I digress, I got home and started investigating about the "life history and economic importance" of the futuristic shaped Mazda 323 Lantis.
There was a web site that gave me the low down on all the models.
There was actually a 2Litre V6 engined version at the top if the ladder, and the smallest engined was a 1.5 Litre poser. Cheap to run, insure, reliable. It would plod quietly from A to B looking like a dinky starship on the road, making people swoon at it's beauty, but that model was never designed to zip around breaking the sound barrier.

My point, Mazda were never ALWAYS about being the fastest when it came to consumer vehicles. They loved giving us the exotic, the unbelievable. The mind bendingly beautiful.

Some of their clientele were people who were and will always be happy to buy and then "pose" on the road in one of Mazda's "Designer" creations.
There are people who didn't buy Mazda when those radical creations were no longer produced. THAT was why they went to Mazda. Not because of "0 -60" figures, of powerful engines.

Mazda found a niche, and exploited it. And here we are. Well, here I am anyway.

While searching the car sale web sites for a nice suitable 323f Lantis to buy, I came across the Mazda MX-3 quite by accident.

As someone said earlier, I immediately dismissed it as a 2 seater car similar to the MX-5, but with a hardtop. Nope, too impractical, thought I.

But then I kept seeing more and more of them online.
Eventually, after convincing myself that I didn't really want a 5 door coupe, but a proper 2 / 3 door coupe, I went back to the MX-3 and decided to investigate.

What was this "Cute" looking coupe that looked so beautiful, yet had a slight hint of menace about it.

The first shock was that this little bodyform actually seated 4 passengers. As long as they were not Roseanne Barr look alikes. (And had NASA training in a Mercury Capsule) It also had a rather cavernous boot for what it was, even with the rear seats in place.

It also came in V6 and I4 guise.
Good! I wanted a cheap cute runabout that looked kick a--, and was like a posing pouch on wheels. I was hooked.
The rest is history - I bought one.

It wasn't how fast it went.
It wasn't it's "0 - 60" factor.
It looked like it had come from another Galaxy.
It looked like it belonged in the background of a Starwars episode - say flying through the air of Coruscant in those sky lanes.
Mazda hadn't skimped on the overall design - it was "shock and awe" at first sight. Yes, it wasn't festooned with a billion gadgets, and sure, it didn't have a V6 3.0Litre verion - but, I still wanted one.
I got one, yup, a 4 Banger as you call it, but I love it to death.
The "ear to ear" grin on my face says it all every morning on my way to work and on the way home again.

I didn't buy it for speed, though, God knows, it delivers pretty well when it's just me alone in the car. 108hp is a lot in a small bodyform of this sleek design.

I am under no illusions as to the technical capabilities of my MX-3.
I knew exactly what I was buying. This is what I wanted.
I have a family of 4 and if need be, we can all shoe horn ourselves into the MX-3 and go where we want. It's tight, but it's a cool car.

My 18 year old daughter now thinks I'm cool because of what I drive.
She hated the Honda. She loves being dropped off in it.

I like the way it gets noticed wherever I go. I bought it already debadged, so nobody knows what it is.
Normally, you need to spend 15 times the money I spent to command such envious stares.

One more thing - I used to watch a Sci-Fi TV series called UFO (by Gerry Anderson of "Thunderbirds" fame) and I was always infatuated with the car the main star "Ed Straker" used to drive.
The series was set in the 21st century, so the car was, well, futuristic.
Always wanted one of those. Really did.

Mazda made my dream come true with the MX-3.
At least I have a car that looks like it belongs in the 21st century. Cool!
And thank goodness for all the errors they made with the marketing.
That made the car even more exclusive, more mysterious.
And more affordable for the likes of me.

My MX-3 is the result of advanced body design. Daring. Original. Cool.
The sight of an MX-3 was an assault on the senses back in 1991.

This is the 21st century, the year 2005.
My heart still does flip-flops whenever I spot an MX-3.
That was what Mazda set out to do.
And by gum, they succeeded.

neutral · Post by **neutral** » September 9th, 2005, 4:29 pm

Yeah, what Thunderstorm said!

vozaday2000 · Post by **vozaday2000** » September 9th, 2005, 4:43 pm

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Juans_93_MX3 · Post by **Juans_93_MX3** » September 9th, 2005, 7:59 pm

One thing we are forgeting about is the un-realibility of these cars which is also a reason why MX3s never sold

relisys_3200 · Post by **relisys_3200** » September 9th, 2005, 10:34 pm

Juans_93_MX3 wrote:One thing we are forgeting about is the un-realibility of these cars which is also a reason why MX3s never sold

man you say that over and over, but honestly I think you either dont care for your cars...or you got a lemon.
I have 2 mx3s right now, one for winter / one for summer. I havnt had my summer one for as long but my winter car I've had for a fair while. That car has paid for itself over and over again in terms reliability. When I crack it out again for winter it will roll over to 330,000kms!! and she still runs amazing. I have friends that drive all other types of cars that only wish they lasted as long as mine has. Im sure there are other people in your boat...but Im almost positive their sales had little to nothing to do with their "reliability".

*EDIT* BTW Thunderstorm.....that brought a tear to my eye..lol