mazda 3 - mps body parts fit not mps?

[xs2man]

The difference between getting 30mpg and 50mpg at 12k miles a year is roughly £800 a year. Obviously the more miles you do the more you save.

Though once you start adding power/torque, handling upgrades and bodykits/wheel, etc, that £800 a year soon disappears. Especially as standard parts like the clutch and dmf fail and need upgrading to handle the power.

Yes. That difference is big enough to certainly be considering the diesel.

Of course, your second point assumes that having the turbocharged petrol in the MPS wont also be mapped (I know I would be mapping it for sure), in which case, the DMF failure would still be a consideration.

Someone who is willing to remap their TDI is most likely to be willing to remap their turbocharged petrol too. In fact, someone willing to change everything you mentioned is just as likely to do that with their petrol equivalent too.

 

[Blackhawk47]

Sorry I forgot all diesels do 90mpg without even trying

I would say my diesel is twice as good on fuel as the petrol would (real world figures).

RE: the dpf regen issue. Its a complete non issue providing you do the right sort of driving/miles. Yes the car's trip computer reads like your mpg goes down but it will quickly go up again once the regen has finished. I don't see the point in 'deleting' it either but I feel like there has already been another thread about that.

To OP, do what you want. Remap will no doubt provide a bit of extra poke. (I know nothing about mazda engines though).

 

[Darryl_1983]

Yes. That difference is big enough to certainly be considering the diesel.

Of course, your second point assumes that having the turbocharged petrol in the MPS wont also be mapped (I know I would be mapping it for sure), in which case, the DMF failure would still be a consideration.

Someone who is willing to remap their TDI is most likely to be willing to remap their turbocharged petrol too. In fact, someone willing to change everything you mentioned is just as likely to do that with their petrol equivalent too.

Agree, I'd be looking at remapping a petrol turbo car too. But then the comparision between a 245bhp diesel and the standard mps is what most are comparing here. Assuming the standard MPS would be fairly equal to the modified diesel putting out 245bhp. Therefore depending on mileage and the time you keep the car the cost between these similarily powered cars isn't that great. Keep in mind the original question was about fitting the MPS body parts, which is why the comparisons

If you start throwing money at the mps too, it's not going to be 255bhp (or whatever they are standard), so you can't really compare it to the diesel anymore.

 

[Dav4]

Someone who is willing to remap their TDI is most likely to be willing to remap their turbocharged petrol too. In fact, someone willing to change everything you mentioned is just as likely to do that with their petrol equivalent too.

Not really he is obviously wanting a remap because he finds the 185bhp slow I doubt he would have felt the need to remap a 260bhp MPS!
And if he would have bought the MPS he obviously wouldn't have needed to buy 18 inch alloys and bodykit like he is doing for his diesel.
At the end of the day it's OP's choice what he does to his car and I'm all for modding a car to your own taste but as people have pointed out the £800 he will save in fuel will be eclipsed by the cost of new alloys, Tyres, remap, bodykit, dpf delete or whatever it is and the insurance will whack a fair bit on for modding which just renders buying the car he chose pointless.
He's obviously not 100% happy with his choice with wanting to do so much having only just purchased it. And given his previous threads on what car to buy he maybe rushed into it.

 

[xs2man]

Agree, I'd be looking at remapping a petrol turbo car too. But then the comparision between a 245bhp diesel and the standard mps is what most are comparing here. Assuming the standard MPS would be fairly equal to the modified diesel putting out 245bhp. Therefore depending on mileage and the time you keep the car the cost between these similarily powered cars isn't that great. Keep in mind the original question was about fitting the MPS body parts, which is why the comparisons

If you start throwing money at the mps too, it's not going to be 255bhp (or whatever they are standard), so you can't really compare it to the diesel anymore.

Of course you can. Everyone else has. Except the OP of course.

At no point did the OP say "I really wanted the MPS, but couldn't afford it, so bought the diesel. How do I make it drive more like a MPS?"

What he did say was :

Hey

I have a Mazda 3 2.2d 185.
it's soon going in to have the dpf gutted and a remap, I'm also having them do some other stuff to the intake and exhaust side.

I was wondwrong, the MPS has some nice body work, the bumpers and bonnet are nice and the spoiler is much better.

My front bumper looks nice already so would probably just go for the bonnet and spoiler.

I'm going to source some RX8 alloys in black and put those on and lower it around 25mm

Kinda love this car now i have been in it a couple of weeks, Just ticks all my boxes!

The only time HE mentioned the MPS was to say it would have been £4.5k more, and then stuck with 25mpg.

The MPS is 4.5K more if i was to sell up and buy one and then only 25mpg...

So, for a start, nothing he mentioned doing would cost anywhere near £4.5k, and it sounds like he needs / wants the fuel economy. All he asked about was some minor cosmetic changes, and a bit more poke. Everyone else jumped all over it saying "sell up and get an MPS you fool." Despite there being, at no point I could see, a desire for an MPS at this stage.

Not really he is obviously wanting a remap because he finds the 185bhp slow I doubt he would have felt the need to remap a 260bhp MPS!
And if he would have bought the MPS he obviously wouldn't have needed to buy 18 inch alloys and bodykit like he is doing for his diesel.
At the end of the day it's OP's choice what he does to his car and I'm all for modding a car to your own taste but as people have pointed out the £800 he will save in fuel will be eclipsed by the cost of new alloys, Tyres, remap, bodykit, dpf delete or whatever it is and the insurance will whack a fair bit on for modding which just renders buying the car he chose pointless.
He's obviously not 100% happy with his choice with wanting to do so much having only just purchased it. And given his previous threads on what car to buy he maybe rushed into it.

It is possible that he wants to remap the car because it's possible / gets reasonable gains. So could be just as likely to go down that route on an MPS.

My 335d was certainly not slow. Yet I still remapped it. Not because I wanted it to "be like an M3" but because it was an option available to me, and improved the car.

I then went on to buy wheels and black kidney grills for it, not because I didn't like the look it had, or it needed them (I replaced the standard 18's with 18's), but because it adds my taste to the vehicle. Something I would still likely have done had I bought an M3.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I would say my diesel is twice as good on fuel as the petrol would (real world figures).

Thats absolute rubbish, surely. That implies that whilst you are eco-ing along at 50mpg a 1.8TFSI would be doing just 25mpg, which is nonsense.

It also implies that when the petrol is doing a long trip at 35ish yours does 70mpg?

 

[xs2man]

I suspect even on a long drive the MPS will struggle to hit 35 mpg. It's not in a £450 per year tax band for nothing. It's a 2.3 turbocharged petrol chucking out millions of CO2. I suspect it would struggle to break 30mpg. Where, on a run, it is not inconceivable a 4 pot diesel "may" return close to 60 mpg.

 

[Dav4]

I would say my diesel is twice as good on fuel as the petrol would (real world figures).

I doubt it. I have never known any diesel owner get anywhere near what the manufacturer claims. we all know how rigged the testing is when they claim it can achieve 60mpg etc. it's hardly ever achievable in the real world.
Take my first car I owned for example a petrol 1.6 mk2 Focus and my friend had a newer more powerful mk4 Mondeo 2.0TD. We had similair journeys to work and over the year I had it I got 34mpg from my petrol while he only ever averaged out at 45mpg. That diesel that had more power and less need to be ragged got 11mpg more than my underpowered petrol in real world driving. I didn't spend a penny on the Focus while he has had over 1k in bills on his diesel breaking with silly issues that would normally not crop up on petrol variants.
It's just crazy how many people just buy diesel on the inflated quotes of mega mpg'zzz

 

[Darryl_1983]

Of course you can. Everyone else has. Except the OP of course.

At no point did the OP say "I really wanted the MPS, but couldn't afford it, so bought the diesel. How do I make it drive more like a MPS?"

What he did say was :





The only time HE mentioned the MPS was to say it would have been £4.5k more, and then stuck with 25mpg.



So, for a start, nothing he mentioned doing would cost anywhere near £4.5k, and it sounds like he needs / wants the fuel economy. All he asked about was some minor cosmetic changes, and a bit more poke. Everyone else jumped all over it saying "sell up and get an MPS you fool." Despite there being, at no point I could see, a desire for an MPS at this stage.




It is possible that he wants to remap the car because it's possible / gets reasonable gains. So could be just as likely to go down that route on an MPS.

My 335d was certainly not slow. Yet I still remapped it. Not because I wanted it to "be like an M3" but because it was an option available to me, and improved the car.

I then went on to buy wheels and black kidney grills for it, not because I didn't like the look it had, or it needed them (I replaced the standard 18's with 18's), but because it adds my taste to the vehicle. Something I would still likely have done had I bought an M3.

I don't believe I've said he should have gone for the MPS instead, just trying to highlight (poorly probably), that spending more money to improve the performance of the diesel that gets higher mpg doesn't also work out cheap than just buying the lower mpg car that already has the performance. Reason being as every car buying thread he starts is mainly around mpg returns.

Though I must admit I'd missed the bit about the MPS costing £4.5k more, i assume this is similar age/mileage cars. The fact is you can get an MPS for the same money as the 2.2d he brought just older, higher mileage.

I'm not against modifying cars or diesels, as I've got a jetta with hybrid turbo presently. It's just not been very cost affective yet over the 182 I had previously. Maybe 20mpg differance over 16-18k a year, verses new turbo and mapping, and future clutch and dmf, among probably over issues.

 

[xs2man]

Yeah, sure. But you didn't NEED to put a hybrid turbo in it surely? And a 20mpg bonus, over 17k per year goes a LONG way towards that.

Maybe some people do modify their diesels to try to achieve petrol variant performance. I certainly don't, and don't know anyone who does. But I do know plenty who buy a diesel because they want the extra mpg's, and modify them because they like modifying cars.

 

[Freefaller]

I suspect even on a long drive the MPS will struggle to hit 35 mpg. It's not in a £450 per year tax band for nothing. It's a 2.3 turbocharged petrol chucking out millions of CO2. I suspect it would struggle to break 30mpg. Where, on a run, it is not inconceivable a 4 pot diesel "may" return close to 60 mpg.

My v6 3.5L 350Z will do 35mpg on long motorway journeys - but fortunately it is in the lower tax band as it was registered in 2006 just before the rates changed.

 

[Darryl_1983]

Yeah, sure. But you didn't NEED to put a hybrid turbo in it surely? And a 20mpg bonus, over 17k per year goes a LONG way towards that.

Maybe some people do modify their diesels to try to achieve petrol variant performance. I certainly don't, and don't know anyone who does. But I do know plenty who buy a diesel because they want the extra mpg's, and modify them because they like modifying cars.

No i didn't, but I did need a new turbo and I was always planning on getting it remap when i bought the car, with the orignal turbo in the mk5 140 being a weak point. I talked myself into spending what was around an extra £300 to have a hybrid turbo, over a rebuilt standard turbo with remap. I'm hoping the hybrid will be a stronger unit, but accept i'm putting more stress to it whenever i use all the power.

 

[Blackhawk47]

Thats absolute rubbish, surely. That implies that whilst you are eco-ing along at 50mpg a 1.8TFSI would be doing just 25mpg, which is nonsense.

It also implies that when the petrol is doing a long trip at 35ish yours does 70mpg?

Lol believe what you like but when I see people post about the range after brimming the tank on 2.0TFSI or TTS is like between 300-360 miles (TTS I hear gets like 20-25mpg) and after brimming my diesel I've seen anything from 600 to 850 mile range. And that's not driving like a granny either.

 

[TheVoice]

I suspect even on a long drive the MPS will struggle to hit 35 mpg.

Correct. I get 34 from my 2.0 Sport at the best of times.

 

[Vince]

I suspect even on a long drive the MPS will struggle to hit 35 mpg. It's not in a £450 per year tax band for nothing. It's a 2.3 turbocharged petrol chucking out millions of CO2. I suspect it would struggle to break 30mpg. Where, on a run, it is not inconceivable a 4 pot diesel "may" return close to 60 mpg.

Mazda's official figures are 21.4mpg, 37.7mpg and 29.4mpg for the urban, extra-urban and combined, respectively. I don't think you would struggle that hard to return 35 on a run. There are plenty much bigger displacement engines that can get to 35 or close on a run.

 

[xs2man]

lol at thinking you can get anywhere near manufacturers extra-urban figures.

I mean, look at above when official figures are Extra Urban mpg = 52.3 mpg for a 2.0 Sport.

EDIT:

And regardless, I don't really understand why anyone takes much notice of the "on a run" numbers. It's the average "over the tank" numbers that really matter here, like Blackhawk states.

It's the 600 mile tank versus the 300 mile tank that makes the difference here. How many people buy an MPS and always drive it at 56 mph on the motorway? Nobody. Heck, you would be really lucky to find many who drive it at 70. But that's not the point either. It's all about the average YOU get when YOU drive it normally, without considering the fuel aspect (i.e. not figure hunting). And driving like that, you are FAR more likely to see double the miles per tank in the diesel than you do in the 2.3 Turbo...

 

[ck88]

I suspect even on a long drive the MPS will struggle to hit 35 mpg. It's not in a £450 per year tax band for nothing. It's a 2.3 turbocharged petrol chucking out millions of CO2. I suspect it would struggle to break 30mpg. Where, on a run, it is not inconceivable a 4 pot diesel "may" return close to 60 mpg.

From Birmingham to London and back I averaged 31MPG in an MPS. 35 is definitely achievable if you'd cruise at 70 all the way. An average tank for me is about 250-300.

 

[MuvverRussia]

30 miles a day of Staines -> Maidenhead gets me about 29 mpg.

My trip computer shows an average of 30.1 mpg right now, but it's a bit optimistic.

It's not _that_ bad on fuel really!

 

[esK`]

I managed to get her to 28.2! On a decent run at 65-70 mph I would expect 35 for sure. An the £450 tax... I wish it was that cheap! £508 I'm paying (DD x 2 per year)

 

[Skilid]

32mpg on a run in mine. Could do over 35 if you sit at 55/60. Gearing needs to be longer to be honest.