2007 Saturn Aura XR: Nice Lump

cx7lover,

I've driven the new 6. Disagree with MT on this one.

-Sadlier

That's some nasty orange peel right above the chrome trim... nasty...

Agree that Toyota's 2GR is the best in class.

My Malibu Maxx with its V6 lump did the same; spinning front tires and torque steer every time I had to accelerate hard (and it had traction control). Ditto the RWD cars I drove with similar power (save torque steer was replaced by oversteer).

Meanwhile, the '08 Subarus I drove have more power than the Malibu but _never_ spun their tires in hard acceleration. They just moved out.
Ditto the Audi A3 3.2 AWD I tried one day.

Once Aura or other midline GM cars get AWD, they'll do the same (like their Saab AWD Cousins do) ;-)

The new MZ6 has torque steer? Or it's not as powerful as the Aura?

Autoblog didn't feel the Mazda's engine felt as strong as the HP number suggested. They said the Altima felt stronger:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/17/first-drive-2009-mazda6/

The Toyota V6 is quite obviously the best engine in the class. No other car can produce the same mix of acceleration and fuel economy while running on regular gas. That said, the HF 3.6 has the best low end torque of all the cars and a bit more character than the 2GR. It makes it's peak at 3200rpm which is much lower than any of the competitors. All things considered though, the 2GR makes no compromises and gives you the best of both worlds.

It seems Mr Sadlier has little experience with high torque FWD cars as I've never had a problem effectively accelerating in the Aura. Perhaps that's because I put ~ 60k miles on an Old Intrigue with the 3800 V6- a real torque monster at the time. In the Aura, I rarely need to request full power as even it's part throttle acceleration is more than adequate. Full throttle does tug the wheel but you have to get used to it and learn how to harness it properly. However, the reward (thrust and sound) is well worth the effort. In fact, the HF V6 has a more baritone and guttural sound than my dad's 3.9L pushrod Impala.

louiswei- I've notice orange peel becoming worse in worse on most of the cars I see. My extra cost pearl white paint is guilty as well though not as bad as my previous car.

The new 6's V6 makes better numbers, obviously, but its peak torque arrives 1050 rpm later than the Aura's (4250 vs. 3200), which is a difference you can feel.

What I disagree with is the claim that the new 6 "feels like the class leader in displacement, horsepower and torque." The 6 feels plenty muscular, to be sure, but like most V6s in this class, it's not snappy off the line. That's where the Aura stands out.

Also, I wouldn't be so sure that the new 6 is quicker than a Camry V6. My butt-stopwatch says the Camry might be a tick ahead.

-Sadlier

Chavis,

I have no problem accelerating effectively in the Aura. I just don't like the unrefined way in which it happens, as discussed in my post. GM should call the Mazdaspeed3 engineers and ask 'em how to harness all that low-end torque in a front-drive application.

Also, good call on the 3200-rpm torque peak. I didn't see that until after my previous comment went up.

What I'm not quite understanding is, you want the low down torque but none of the TQ steer that comes along with it and FWD? Mazda limits the throttle to reduce the pulling in one direction, so you can't have your cake(low down torque) and eat it too(meaty torque off the line) with FWD.

GM shouldn't call Mazdaspeed on anything as Mazda artificially limits the torque on that engine in the lowest gears. The power characteristics of that engine do not match the vehicle and that is defined as inept engineering. Why would you try to route 280lbs-ft through 215 section tires on a car that weighs 3100 lbs and carries 64% of it's weight over the front wheels? That's a recipe for disaster and that's why the electronic scheme was created as a crutch. If anything, Mazda should call GM and learn the limits of their chassis before they go for headline grabbing output figures. If Mazda were smart, they would've turbocharged the 2.0L MZR four cylinder for about 240hp/250lbs-ft and a linear HP drop off above the power peak and instead of the precipitous nose dive the 2.3L undergoes after 5500 rpm. Also a torque converter's characteristics cannot be directly compared to a manual clutch's.

I would hardly call the torque delivery of the Aura "unrefined." That adjective seems to be a stretch of the imagination. If you mash it, you get a little wheel tugging. After a few full throttle applications, I don't see how anyhow could not become accustomed to the phenomenon and appreciate the thrust.

The previous generation Altima V6 had "unrefined" application of power more than likely do the it's wet noodle chassis stiffness. The Aura is about 3 times better at applying it's power.

"What I'm not quite understanding is, you want the low down torque but none of the TQ steer that comes along with it and FWD? Mazda limits the throttle to reduce the pulling in one direction, so you can't have your cake(low down torque) and eat it too(meaty torque off the line) with FW"

GM just serves it up. If the driver can't handle it, then too bad. No throttle limiting or artificial electronic trickery. Drop the hammer and you get thrust so grab the wheel and hold on.

cx7lover,

Yeah, that is a valid point about eating cake. But in the Aura's case, it has so much torque off the line that it's overwhelming the front tires, so basically you can't use all of it anyway. I'd like to see measures taken so that flooring the Aura from a stop results in a nice smooth power delivery rather than wild wheelspin/torque-steer. There'd still be plenty of pull if the off-the-line power were limited to what the tires can handle.

An example of good execution in this regard is the Altima 3.5SE with the CVT. Good pull off the line (albeit not "low-rpm pull," since the CVT zings you right up to, what, 4500 rpm I think?), no traction issues, no torque steer to speak of.

Chavis, if you look at my post, I certainly do "appreciate the thrust" of the Aura's 3.6. I don't appreciate the other stuff.

-Sadlier

chavis10 - LOL

Artificially? What's artificial about limiting boost and throttle? With a single turbo, I4, you either get the power down low or the power up top, you CAN'T have low down power and big power band up top with an I4-SINGLE turbo engine, NOT possible.

And to claim that Mazda simply went for the biggest peak HP/TQ numbers is insanely presumptuous and WRONG. Case and point, the Cobalt Turbo takes a dive right after 5.5K!

Yeah well Chavis, get the F over it, instead of spinning wheels Mazda choose to limit the power so it actually reaches the ground and keeps the car pointing in the direction it was intended to be in. You don't like it? GET over it. I'm sure the "Electronic trickery" that the Cobalt has with the no lift shift that controls the ETC to close and open the throttle with the peddle still on the floor, it is completely girly and artificial right?? So is the brake-lock diff they fitted to it? Which utilizes a COMPUTER to brake the wheels in addition to the optional LSD? Chavis, your bias is showing and it's not cute!

My mom is considering the Mazda 6 as her next car, and I think it would be a really great car for her. All the extra features she doesn't have now, like Bluetooth, keyless start, BSM, and a power passenger seat, would be really nice to have. I'm just hoping that the driving experience and crash-test results are good enough. Overall though, it seems like a really nice car. And I agree with everyone in the past posts that say an '09 Mazda 6 GT should be added to the long-term fleet. (:

Considering the fact that it's the first gen+refinement and space that it lacked, it's nothing but an improvement over the last, I'll know for sure once I test drive it, IMO of course.

Leave it to an Aura post to give us a small flame out war. Where is 1478 though? It must have been banned.

"Artificially? What's artificial about limiting boost and throttle? With a single turbo, I4, you either get the power down low or the power up top, you CAN'T have low down power and big power band up top with an I4-SINGLE turbo engine, NOT possible."

Do you know anything about engines? Obviously not. Pressurized intake combined with direct injection completely changes the power characteristics of the engine. It's hard having these discussion when you clearly are lacking engineering knowledge yet become blind and defensive as soon as someone criticizes Mazda. These engines (turbo/DI) make big power at peak RPM and huge torque and lower RPM, completely nullifying your ridiculous false claim. The point is that if Mazda used a smaller displacement engine, they would not have had to issue a torque limiting scheme that hinders acceleration. The created an engine too strong for the chassis, that is a FACT. Unless you can prove otherwise I suggest you calm down.

"And to claim that Mazda simply went for the biggest peak HP/TQ numbers is insanely presumptuous and WRONG. Case and point, the Cobalt Turbo takes a dive right after 5.5"

Wrong? How so? You make this statement evidence, as usual. For the record, all single turbo directly injected engines have abbreviated power bands yet the MS3's is especially egregious.

"Yeah well Chavis, get the F over it, instead of spinning wheels Mazda choose to limit the power so it actually reaches the ground and keeps the car pointing in the direction it was intended to be in. You don't like it?"

No, actually what the system does is castrate the power that the engine makes. This combined with unfavorable gearing leads to unimpressive 0-60 times (2 shifts before 60 is asinine in a car with so much torque). Bad engineering- FACT. If you designed a powertain, would you choose what Mazda has done with the MS3? If you would, than you are not that bright.

"I'm sure the "Electronic trickery" that the Cobalt has with the no lift shift that controls the ETC to close and open the throttle with the peddle still on the floor, it is completely girly and artificial right?? So is the brake-lock diff they fitted to it? Which utilizes a COMPUTER to brake the wheels in addition to the optional LSD? Chavis, your bias is showing and it's not cute!"

Did I mention the Cobalt SS? No I did not. You did so your bias is showing. You cannot defend Mazda's decisions so instead you criticize the Cobalt SS. The funny thing is, No Lift Shift keeps the power flowing through the shift instead of electronically neutering the torque the way Mazda does. The LSD doesn't curtail the flow of torque so I am not sure what your point was...??

Here's another FACT for you to digest- non of these companies have as much experience in routing high torque loads through the front wheels than GM, and it shows.

Benson2175- do you have anything to add to the discussion or was that remark so supposed to clever or funny? For the record, it was neither.

Sadlier- ok. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I am glad you at least acknowledged the 3.6's unique power characteristics which is more than most folks can do.

chavis10 -

whats the difference between having a smaller engine giving you 240hp/250ftlb. And having a computer cut power to give you the same numbers?

IMHO none. With the other method you get a higher output once you start moving, to me thas a benefit.

The biggest downside to the Mspd3 design is the fall on its face power after 5500rpm... However with proper shifting that doesnt really matter. Testers are able to constantly record 0-60 times <=6 sec's. So while you say power limiting is bad, it seems to work in that application.

As for the aura, honestly, Yes you can floor it, but why? if you had a rwd car with a similar amount of power you should be able to break the rear end free from a dead stop if you floored it. In day to day driving there should never be a need to floor it from a dead stop.

To me thats a sign of a bad driver; one that doesn't know the gas pedal has settings between on and off.

"I have no problem accelerating effectively in the Aura. I just don't like the unrefined way in which it happens, as discussed in my post. GM should call the Mazdaspeed3 engineers and ask 'em how to harness all that low-end torque in a front-drive application."

Please tell me you are joking. The MS3 has been criticized for having some of the worst torque steer in the business today. The Aura/Malibu have not been criticized for torque steer in reviews and I can vouch for the lack of torque steer. You have to FLOOR the car to get any steering wheel tug. Its not apparent in normal driving situations.

"I'd like to see measures taken so that flooring the Aura from a stop results in a nice smooth power delivery rather than wild wheelspin/torque-steer. There'd still be plenty of pull if the off-the-line power were limited to what the tires can handle."

You must be on the pedal extremely hard to get wheelspin. First of all the Aura has traction control and most people dont drive with TC turned off. Secondly the Aura is a very heavy car and thus there is a lot of weight over the front wheels. I NEVER experience wheelspin on dry pavement. The few times I apply full throttle when merging onto highways the wheel moves a little and the car takes off. This isn't a RWD muscle car with 45% of it's weight over the driving wheels. Its hard to get wheelspin in most FWD cars and the Aura is no exception. If you drive like a normal law abiding adult you typically wont encounter any "unrefined" behavior.

why would Benson, or anyone else, post just to ask when another member is going to comment? BTW, a flame war is when people are hurling insults back and forth without regard for substance or subject matter. People discussing torque steer and engine characteristics doesn't count as a "flame war".

"I'd like to see measures taken so that flooring the Aura from a stop results in a nice smooth power delivery rather than wild wheelspin/torque-steer. There'd still be plenty of pull if the off-the-line power were limited to what the tires can handle."

You must be on the pedal extremely hard to get wheelspin. First of all the Aura has traction control and most people dont drive with TC turned off. Secondly the Aura is a very heavy car and thus there is a lot of weight over the front wheels. I NEVER experience wheelspin on dry pavement. The few times I apply full throttle when merging onto highways the wheel moves a little and the car takes off. This isn't a RWD muscle car with 45% of it's weight over the driving wheels. Its hard to get wheelspin in most FWD cars and the Aura is no exception. If you drive like a normal law abiding adult you typically wont encounter any "unrefined" behavior.

why would Benson, or anyone else, post just to ask when another member is going to comment? BTW, a flame war is when people are hurling insults back and forth without regard for substance or subject matter. People discussing torque steer and engine characteristics doesn't count as a "flame war".

I just have to laugh. People are complaining that the car has too much low end torque. I think the car gods are turning in their graves hearing people complaining about having too much torque. The problem is that the reviewers are used to driving hondas which have no low end torque that you have to push the pedal to the floor to get the car moving, while with the aura it has enough low end torque you can have a normal cruise and the torque will get you anywhere you need to go. It does it smoothly and without problems.

Then there's talks about people wanting to cutoff the low end torque off the start. Get out of here. The reason why the aura might smoke the tires off the line is because the goodyear LS2s suck. I have them on my aura and am waiting for the day i can replace them with a nice set of bfgoodrich or michelins.

I just test drove my friends new acura tl and while driving it i was waiting for the torque to kick in and pull me and it just wasnt there. It might have it on the top end on the freeway but we live in america where we mostly drive on the street and sometimes on the freeway with speed limite of 65mph. We are not on the autobahn where we need the torque up higher when we are cruising at 100mph. LONG LIVE AMERICAN LOW END TORQUE.

"The problem is that the reviewers are used to driving hondas which have no low end torque that you have to push .......... It does it smoothly and without problems. "

Good point. The 3.6L doesnt need to be over 4000rpm to wake up and if you arent ready you might be caught by surprise. Learn how to handle the power and the car behaves just fine. This is like an inexperienced driver getting a hold of a Vette or Challenger and then complaining the car is just too fast to be controlled. Perhaps in I-4 cars or Hondas you have to floor the go pedal often to get going but that isnt necessary in this car and even if you do it's pretty easy to control. GM really hasnt had major torque steer issues since the first generation STS and other V8 powered Cadillacs of that era. GM tamed torque steer on the Grand Prix GXP with 303hp so I assume they can route 251 lb-ft through the front wheels.

Wow, the level of discourse in here in positively illuminating :)

The Aura is a family sedan with a largish v6 engine that puts out a good amount of mid-range torque. It's a FWD platform. It has torque steer which is moderately mitigated by it's not-stiffly sprung suspension, heavier weight, and greater rotational mass (the wheels/tires).

The Mazdaspeed 3 is a performance FWD hatchback with a turbocharged, direct-injected four cylinder. Peak torque occurs at 3000 rpms (and a greater overall amount than the Aura). It's ~400-500 pounds less than the Aura. Peak torque occurs with more surge (due to the turbocharging)than the linear delivery in the Aura. The MS3 employs equal length half shafts, boost control in 1st and 2nd gear, and other measures to help eliminate torque steer. Considering the stiffer suspension tuning, lighter weight, greater overall torque, and lesser rotational mass, the MS3 has done a great job of limiting torque (despite 1487's aspersions, almost all reviews mention the surprising lack of torque steer given the design...and my personal test drives have backed that up).

But again, why are these being compared?

Joe

opfreak

"whats the difference between having a smaller engine giving you 240hp/250ftlb. And having a computer cut power to give you the same numbers?

IMHO none. With the other method you get a higher output once you start moving, to me thas a benefit."

Fuel economy. And for a car that light with that much power, the 0-60 numbers should be well into the mid 5 second range, consistantly.

I will post the link of a YouTube test drive of the MS3 so you can see what real torque steer looks like. The Aura is no where close as it produces 30 less lbs-ft, wider tires and exerts a much higher natural force on it's front tires than the MS3 (ie higher curb weight).

Joe,

Thanks, but umm, we've already highlighted everything you just wrote. PS, the rotational mass of the MS3 is likely higher than the Aura's do to it's 1" larger brake rotors. Unless you have the mass of the wheels, tires, rotors and calipers for each car, I'd back off that example.

Again, Mazda applied too much torque into a car that simply cannot handle it.

chavis10, you are SO irrelevent, you want to talk about GM, and I bring up a GM and suddenly it's no OK? Since we're talking MAZDASPEED3, which is front wheel drive, turbocharged, and direct injected, I threw in the GM COBALT, which is ALSO the same, and it has WAY more computers controlling the power in that thing, the thing even has an electronic limited slip!!!! WHICH controls the power using the brakes and a computer!

"Fuel economy. And for a car that light with that much power, the 0-60 numbers should be well into the mid 5 second range, consistantly."

You WON'T get low 5 second numbers with a FWD car, FWD is a limitation and it's just NOT possible to request full torque off the line with a FWD car and expect it to track all of it's power as if it was AWD without SOME limitation.

"Wrong? How so? You make this statement evidence, as usual. For the record, all single turbo directly injected engines have abbreviated power bands yet the MS3's is especially egregious. "

Proof? The MS3's powerband is just like the modded 2.0L FSI engine, it takes a dive, For the record you have not a clue of what you're talking about, the power band in the MS3 is fine given the power that is available within it, and where it's getting that power from, don't get all upset because Everyone loves the MS3 and it's LIMITATIONS that keep torque steer & wheel spin well under control.

You want to mention "OMG limiting the power with a computer, it's totally not cool and GM doesn't do this either, the power is all raw and if you can't handle it too bad"!!1!!!

Yeah, well, GM has launch control, No Lift Shift, and a Brake Lock Limited slip, are ALL computers that do the work without human input, which means, closing and opening the throttle, with a COMPUTER, REDUCING TQ STEER with a COMPUTER & the brakes, among other things. Your beloved GM has "electronic trickery" implemented in their turbocharged front wheel drive cars too so why don't you take your GM loving highhorse off to somewhere else, you clearly have a agenda against Mazda and it's really tired now.

Thanks, but umm, we've already highlighted everything you just wrote. PS, the rotational mass of the MS3 is likely higher than the Aura's do to it's 1" larger brake rotors. Unless you have the mass of the wheels, tires, rotors and calipers for each car, I'd back off that example.

Since when did bigger mean heavier? Likely? Proof or keep your mouth closed, not much of anything you say can be backed up with proof, just that GM is king and Mazda has build poor cars riddled with "electronic trickery" and boost limitations and because of that they suck and should go bankrupt.

"the MS3 has done a great job of limiting torque (despite 1487's aspersions, almost all reviews mention the surprising lack of torque steer given the design...and my personal test drives have backed that up). "

Read R&T's recent article about efficient performance cars featuring the MS3, Cobalt SS and about 8 other cars. They mention the torque steer. C&D has referenced it as well in comparison tests. My point was its silly to say GM should take notes from Mazda on how to apply power through the front wheels when the MS3 uses technology to mitigate torque steer and still cant totally control the problem.

"You WON'T get low 5 second numbers with a FWD car, FWD is a limitation and it's just NOT possible to request full torque off the line with a FWD car and expect it to track all of it's power as if it was AWD without SOME limitation."

Cobalt SS has been clocked at 5.5secs to 60. Grand Prix GXP was clocked at 5.6secs. The GXp had no electronic aids to control torque steer. It was all done with engineering. The Cobalt has no lift shift in order for the engine to maintain boost when upshifting. This has nothing to do with torque steer. I think you need to learn the difference between traction aids and torque steer qwelling measures. The GTR has launch control and it surely isnt because that car suffers from torque steer. The launch control on the Cobalt SS simply allows the engine too rev to a certain level before you launch so that you can take advantage of the boost. I believe it allows you to hold revs at 4100rpm or so for an effective full power launch.

GM's FWD V8 cars have no electronic aids. They just accelerate with minimal torque steer due to the way they were designed.

"because of that they suck and should go bankrupt. "

He said all that? I guess I missed that post. I dont think someone that drives a Mazda would want Mazda to go bankrupt but you surely know best.

"Its hard to get wheelspin in most FWD cars and the Aura is no exception. If you drive like a normal law abiding adult you typically wont encounter any "unrefined" behavior."

Every FWD car I have ever owned, 4cyl or 6cyl, has had no problem spinning the front wheels. Wet roads or dry roads. I am hardly an aggressive driver.

"GM's FWD V8 cars have no electronic aids. They just accelerate with minimal torque steer due to the way they were designed."

All of GM's FWD V8's have electronic aids. Traction control, stabilitrak, etc. Lucerne, LaCrosse Super, Grand Prix GXP, Impala SS, Cadillac DTS, etc. While GM tries to use engineering tricks to reduce torque steer (for example putting larger tires on the front than the rear in the case of the GP GXP), they still rely heavily on electronic aids to pick up their slack.

1487,

It's true that the MS3's torque-limiting system doesn't "totally control the problem." However, there's really not much torque steer in that car (YouTube test drives notwithstanding), despite its massive power output. If you don't want to take my word for it, drive one and see for yourself.

Joe, the MS3 came up because it's an example of a low-rpm-torque-rich FWD car that delivers said torque in a civilized manner, thanks to clever engineering. I've been arguing that the Aura's driving character would be enhanced if it delivered its impressive low-end torque in a similarly refined way.

Anyway, let me set the record straight on a couple points.

(1) We're not "used to driving Hondas" -- we drive everything, and we drive them thoroughly, and in between drives we're constantly debating each car's relative virtues and deficiencies. Our impressions are typically based on comparisons between competing models, as was my original post here.

(2) We don't always drive "like normal law-abiding adults," because cars are so competent these days that pretty much all of them get the job done under those circumstances. When you drive a car at or near its limits, that's when the cream rises to the top -- and no, most people don't drive like this, but this IS an enthusiast-oriented forum, after all. Driven like an enthusiast would drive it, the Aura XR comes up short in the ways I've described. The Altima 3.5SE CVT and Camry V6 models, on the other hand, are examples of overall powertrain excellence in this class.

In any case, can we try to keep the comments civil going forward? I dig the collective enthusiasm, but come on -- you guys are coming to virtual blows over a family sedan.

-Sadlier

There is still some TQ steer, but not nearly as bad as if the MS3 had all of it's power and boost off the line. I wasn't talking about the heavy GXP, either, the day you see the MS3 or Cobalt run low 5.1 or 5.3(not mid 5.5 second runs) 0-60 times is the day both of those cars gain AWD or RWD. The GXP has torque steer like you would believe, and to even suggest that it has less than the MS3 is a ignorant lie. They're a few sites that say the MS3 has torque steer but it's really not serious, they're WAY more sources that say the TQ steer is very manageable and is not an issue, even with it's limitations it's still on top of all of it's competition.

Since you want to bring up the failboat GXP, bring up numerous quotes about the GXP
Edmunds-
"overpowering torque steer"

"Torque Steer City
Stuffing a V8 into a front-wheel-drive platform is a surefire recipe for torque steer, and Pontiac's engineers have cooked up plenty of it. Hammering the pedal at any speed causes the car to dart around like there's a drunk behind the wheel. And laying into it from a dead stop, even with GXP's traction control turned on, results in immediate wheelspin, which slows the Grand Prix's acceleration."

"The torque steer also limits the GXP's appeal on a mountain road, especially when exiting slow corners. Numb and disconnected steering, a nose-heavy feel and a nasty delay before the transmission actually reacts to the driver's "taps" also sap the GXP of fun-to-drive points."

"The GXP has a disturbing tendency to pull alternately in both directions under heavy throttle -- sort of like a high-spirited horse shaking its head and trying to unsettle the rider. It's not a pleasant sensation. There's a heavy dose of torque steer from that big motor."

AutoWeek -
"The car exhibits quite a bit of torque steer, in fact, even when going straight ahead on a flat road. Any semi-enthusiastic engagement of the throttle seemed to cause the front wheels to lose their ability to direct the nose even reasonably well."

I was being obviously sarcastic, sucks you didn't pick up on that.

MS3 You say?

About.com

"Mazdaspeed has done a great job of controlling torque-steer, which is the tendency of front-wheel drive vehicles to pull to the side under hard acceleration. The 3 isn’t totally immune to the effect, but it is very minor"

Edmunds

"And after just five minutes in the car, any doubts we had about dubious traction levels under power or torque-steer problems dissolved instantly. As a top priority on the R&D team's list, engineers have not only reinforced the driveshaft, but have also fitted a specially tuned torque-sensing super limited-slip differential."

SportCompact
"Clearly the Mazdaspeed3 would need an LSD and a lot of fine tuning to utilize all that torque without smoking the front tires at every stoplight. The development team decided against mechanical clutch and Torsen types in favor of the smoother response and everyday driveability of a Tochigi Fuji conical seat-type LSD. But there were still fears that torque steer would make the car undriveable. So Mazdaspeed engineers deployed the standard set of torque steer countermeasures; they optimized steering, alignment, and suspension geometry and sourced large diameter, equal length driveshafts. Then they developed a system that uses PCM (Mazda's term for Engine And Chassis Control Unit) calibration and electronic throttle valve-opening control strategies. Steering angle and wheel slip compensation factors were programmed into the PCM to assist in transferring the power without upsetting the chassis, dynamic handling and steering performance.

This complicated electronic system addresses the two root causes of torque steer: too much power too soon, and unequal loading of the tires. To combat the former, the PCM dials back the amount of power available in first and second gear by recalibrating the engine, reducing the throttle angle, and/or adjusting boost pressure. A steering angle sensor assists with uneven tire load, by telling the PCM to reduce power in similar fashion when it senses a sharp or abrupt steering angle input. It's a complicated system that some might distrust, until the very first time they go for a drive."

That enough?

"The GXP has torque steer like you would believe, and to even suggest that it has less than the MS3 is a ignorant lie. "

C&D road tested the car and commended the lack of torque steer and outlined the engineering that made this possible. Wrong again. BTW, I really dont count edmunds review since they hated the Grand Prix (its a Pontiac after all) and made no mention of the engineering enchancements employed to control torque steer. C&D's opinion totally contradicts the quotes you displayed. If you want negative quotes about American cars there will typically be something in Edmunds or IL's archives to help you. This is why you need to consider other sources. Other than the G8 I cant think of any pontiac product that has ever gotten any positive feedback from edmunds. Either GM and C&D are lying about the GXp or edmunds was exaggerating. You decide.

"Driven like an enthusiast would drive it, the Aura XR comes up short in the ways I've described. The Altima 3.5SE CVT and Camry V6 models, on the other hand, are examples of overall powertrain excellence in this class."

We all know that testers push cars harder than normal folks but you seem to be missing my point that this issue hasnt been raised in other road tests of the Aura or Malibu. In fact, I dont even think it was raised in IL's test drives. You seem to be one of the few people who find the Aura hard to control so I'm not so sure that the car really has a problem. I dont drive Hondas for a living so perhaps the Accord (and other cars) display even less torque steer but I do drive and Aura and I don't share your assessment.

CX7 lover,

I dont get your point (no surprise there) at all. YOu give me a quote about the MS3's complex torque limiting system but that has nothing to do with my post. I said that the Cobalt SS didn't have a complex electronic system to manage torque steer and you havent said anything that contradicts that point. The MS3 has much more technology at its disposal to manage torque steer and apparently the MS3 is no better or worse than the less complex Cobalt SS turbo.

*Apologies in advance for a slightly off-topic post:

The MS3 is interesting to me because of the conflicting torque-steer reports I've heard. When it was first launched, I read comments like those that cx7lover posted. Those comments however, are at odds with my personal experience with the car and some of the later tests that I've read. C/D featured the car in their "Hot Hatches in the Roaring 20's" article and mentioned "wheel-wrenching" torque steer, and Automobile magazine stated that it had more torque steer than any other new car on the road today. I noticed a lot of it on my test drive of the car, and that, along with several other issues led me to the conclusion that the MS3 is one of the most overrated cars sold today. Sure, it's fast, but the numb steering, droning exhaust, and boy-racer looks just killed it. For the money, I'd have a GTI or Civic Si any day.

"With its traction control on or off, the Impala tracks arrow straight with no intrusive torque steer. This really impressed us. Despite the V8's ability to light up the front tires with ease, the profound torque steer in the mechanically similar Pontiac Grand Prix GTP simply isn't much of a problem in the Impala SS."

John Pearley Huffman- IL Road Test of '06 Impala SS

"Then I finally drove the Impala SS. Damn if this thing doesn't feel "substantially upgraded." For instance, the steering (which has long been a sticking point for me on GM products) is actually…really good. It's weighty, but not artificially so, and it has good responsiveness and feedback. And despite all that power (over 300), it doesn't have any appreciable torque steer."

Karl Brauer- 2nd opinion of the same car.

Cx7lover has trouble reporting both sides of his ridiculous stories. He takes quotes that support his agenda and pretends no one else has come to a different conclusion.

You are good at quoting press materials but since you lack the knowledge behind the principals, they rarely help your case. A limited slip diff should be able to effectively manage acceleration in a high torque FWD engine. Again, the fact remains Mazda screwed itself by trying to put too much power through the front wheels. They have no experience putting that much torque in a FWD car and the application of this electronic crutch scheme is proof positive backs my stance.

Sadlier- any topic will remain hostile as long as Cx7lover continues to post his obnoxious rants. Anyway- back to the topic, I still disagree with your stance on the issue. If the Camry and Altima produced the same amount of low end torque as the Aura AND applied it with zero steering wheel tugging, then I'd agree. The Altima and Camry make more high end power and that comes into play after the initial launch. If you want deep down grunt, the Aura/Malibu provide it in spades and are the champions in that regard. I guess we'll have to wait for the official Mazda6 impressions to see if it can out torque the Aura. As I said, the Camry wins because of it's outstanding performance and mileage but if I had to drag race my family car, I'd take the 3.6L HF.

Obnoxious? You want to get obnoxious? How's this for obnoxious, taking jabs at Mazda because they have torque steer and wheel spin under control by using the ETC and DSC system. OR even suggesting that they only went for the biggest peak numbers when tuning engine output, or even claiming that they have no experience with high-powered FWD because they chose to limit power? How asinine is that?

It's not a crutch, if Mazda wanted to have some TQ steer monster that snaps the wheel out of your hand on call it CERTAINLY takes no engineering to do so, and because Mazda decided to take a better approach and keep the power on the ground, they don't know how to engineer a high power FWD car?

Instead of giving it all to you so you and spin wheels, burn rubber(with GM's TC off), go nowhere and grow a big hardon? "OMG LOOK AT ME, IN MY GM SPINNING WHEELS! THANKS FOR GIVING ME TOO MUCH POWER"! What kind of argument is that? Does the MS3 have some sort of issue that makes it less of an overachiever because it has throttle and boost limits? No! All of your claims of how they don't know what they're doing are completely unfounded and ignorant, the MS3 owns the sport hatch segment, THANKS to MAZDASPEED ENGINEERING.

1487 brought up the GXP, not the SS, you're so out of touch.

sabastian -

And it still got number 1 in that C/D comparison, that should explain it all, they still would choose it over all of them.

It should be noted that the camry and Altima are lighter than the Aura/Malibu. The Camry's acceleration is great due to the engine and the light weight of the car. If the 3.5L V6 was in the Aura it likely wouldnt produce the same results. The Atima is even lighter than the Camry and is slower than the Aura in spite of having 270hp. The Aura is the heaviest car in this class. The Accord is close and also exceeds 3600lbs in V6 guise.

"And it still got number 1 in that C/D comparison, that should explain it all, they still would choose it over all of them."

Thats irrelevant to the conversation at hand. C&D is essentially saying the car's handling and styling are more than enough to compensate for its ridiculous torque steer. Our discussion pertained to Mazda's expertise at managing torque steer, not the capability of the MS3 as a sports compact.

"It's not a crutch, if Mazda wanted to have some TQ steer monster that snaps the wheel out of your hand on call it CERTAINLY takes no engineering to do so, and because Mazda decided to take a better approach and keep the power on the ground, they don't know how to engineer a high power FWD car?"

Actually Mazda had to employ electronic measures to make the MS3 driveable since its the most powerful FWD car they have ever made. Typically a manufacturer's first foray into powerful FWD cars results in torque steer. See Altima V6 and Saab Viggen for reference.

"1487 brought up the GXP, not the SS, you're so out of touch."

The GXP had less torque steer than the Impala SS due to larger front tires, tire compound and other measures. The Impala never got the anti torque steer enhancements of the GXP.

Have you ever seen anyone light up the front tires in an Aura? I surely haven't. I'd also like to know how many folks drive with TC turned off in 2008. My guess is not many. TC eliminates wasteful wheel spinning and thus anyone who is experiencing wild wheelspin in an Aura wants to do that.

1487, true. The Altima is a lightweight and also gets disqualified for sucking down premium fuel. I like the Camry but if you get the SE, you get that horrible body kit and can't get all the XLE's uplevel options. The XLE comes with 16" wheels which is a joke and a soft suspension that can't handle the acceleration the engine provides.

The Malibu would still be my pick if I had to have a V6 powered family sedan. If I were to get an I4, I'd probably go with the Mazda6 i GT pending my first impression. I am due for an oil change soon so hopefully they'll have one on the lot by then.

I am very anxious to see if Mazda came tame 270lbs-ft feet in the upcoming 6. I'm leaning towards no but only time will tell. Since a couple of impressions have already stated it feels soft off the line, I'm thinking they have some sort of electronic limiting scheme going on. I hope that's not the case because that'll be very lame but not at all surprising to me. Look what happened when Acura tried stuffing all that power through the TL type S. Torque steering mess.

cx7lover- if you want anyone to take you seriously, you should try increasing your vocabulary so you wouldn't resort to colloquialisms such as "...and grow a big hardon." You are worse than the Honda junkies I went to high school with.

1487- cx7lover cannot focus on a topic without going into full attack mode if a) GM is applauded or b) if Mazda is criticized. I don't believe anyone even remotely attacked the MS3 as a vehicle. The topic is torque steer and he veers off onto "...MS3 owns the sport hatch segment, THANKS to MAZDASPEED ENGINEERING." I don't think there is any chance at rational discussion with someone of his ilk.

"'1487 brought up the GXP, not the SS, you're so out of touch.'

The GXP had less torque steer than the Impala SS due to larger front tires, tire compound and other measures. The Impala never got the anti torque steer enhancements of the GXP. "

Thanks for clearing that up. My point was that the Impala SS and LaCrosse Super both effectively route 323lbs-ft through their front wheels with little torque steer. Neither was meant to be a the full fledged sports sedan the GXP was intended to be and did not suffer from extreme torque steer.

"Thats irrelevant to the conversation at hand. C&D is essentially saying the car's handling and styling are more than enough to compensate for its ridiculous torque steer. Our discussion pertained to Mazda's expertise at managing torque steer, not the capability of the MS3 as a sports compact. "

What? You do know that with FWD, power to the wheels has a HELL of a lot to do with the cars ability to handle right? Which is why we have LSD's on a lot of high output cars, right?

Did you read what he quoted? It said the SS has LESS, not more. Which counters the argument you're trying to get across, that the GXP has less and the SS has more. Can't you GM fans get it together?

"GM just serves it up. If the driver can't handle it, then too bad. No throttle limiting or artificial electronic trickery. Drop the hammer and you get thrust so grab the wheel and hold on."

If the driver can't handle it; like that was ever the case with limiting the throttle. Why is it so important that you have torque steer, I'm still not understanding why you see it has important? It detracts from the overall driving experience and is a DOWNSIDE. Limiting torque is a GOOD thing, regardless of how it was done, who in the world would even want torque steer? Do you understand what you're saying? And how obnoxious it and torque steer is?

You're missing the point, why have all the power off the line if you're either going to have the traction control try to control the situation(LIMIT POWER), or light up the tires and pull on the wheel, it has a lot to do with attention craving and ego-stroking, look at me! I can light up the tires!!!!!!!!!

Spinning the wheels gets you nowhere, getting rid of it so you can get down to the ground with less or none of that drama without pulling on the wheel and spinning out is a GOOD thing. REGARDLESS of how it's done.

Why is that so hard for you comprehend?

"While GM tries to use engineering tricks to reduce torque steer (for example putting larger tires on the front than the rear in the case of the GP GXP), they still rely heavily on electronic aids to pick up their slack."

Stabilitrak isnt charged with reducing torque steer. No GM vehicle with a V8 has had the type of engine limiting software used in the MS3. Period.

"Did you read what he quoted? It said the SS has LESS, not more. Which counters the argument you're trying to get across, that the GXP has less and the SS has more. Can't you GM fans get it together?"

I read Karl's quote. C&D disagreed and explained the differences between the GXP and SS that allowed the Pontiac to handle better and have less torque steer. Since GM did not apply the tire changes to the SS common sense would dictate that the Grand Prix would handle its power better than the Impala. I know exactly what I am talking about. Do you?

"I don't think there is any chance at rational discussion with someone of his ilk. "

Very true. What's amazing is that he's never stated he has so fervently. I've driven the Grand Prix GTP and FWD Cadillacs and torque steer wasnt a major problem. That said if intelligence was measured by (over)use of exclamation points CX7 would indeed be considered an intellectual giant. He is the master of the exclamation point.

Preemptively shutting down excessive torque and wheel spin when it's not needed limiting torque steer is so much better than having traction control limit power AFTER it's gotten out of hand.

That's why they limited power in the lower gears and give it all to you after second gear, it makes perfect sense and it WORKS.

To be fair, GM has done a good job of greatly reducing torque steer in the Impala SS using traction control and beefed-up suspension geometry.

^^ Disproved your entire argument right there.

The torque steer is worse with the T/C off, and it's still there because of the T/C, there is no way of getting around it, the GM boats have inevitable torque steer. Why even try to argue that as a good thing. seriously
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah, I'll use as many as I want, get over it and stop harping on things that don't even matter.

"sabastian -

And it still got number 1 in that C/D comparison, that should explain it all, they still would choose it over all of them."

True enough. It easily wins the numbers battle (0-60, 1/4 mile, skidpad, etc.), but I was annoyed by the powertrain. There was too much turbo lag, too much torque steer, and too much drop off in power above 5.5k rpm. The European press is not as enamored with the MS3 (or M3 MPS as it is called over there) for a reason.

I think the lesson that can be learned from all of these overpowered fwd cars is restraint. If auto makers need to find ways to reduce torque steer and wheel spin with traction control and/or power reduction, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the design of the car. Should GM be trying to build fwd cars with V8 engines? No. Should Mazda be trying to shove 263hp through the front wheels of a small car? No. Everyone wants to say that their car offers the most power in its class, blah, blah, blah. The company, however, that can learn how to balance all aspects of car design is usually the one that ends up with the best finished product.

:gets popcorn:

How do you guys and gals like these apples?

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_LQSisiSF5tM/R7NtVAyb9tI/AAAAAAAAACQ/O6Pmb7BbgQw/Altenberg.jpg

there's no apples on that link for me..

Chavis said, "Joe,

Thanks, but umm, we've already highlighted everything you just wrote. PS, the rotational mass of the MS3 is likely higher than the Aura's do to it's 1" larger brake rotors. Unless you have the mass of the wheels, tires, rotors and calipers for each car, I'd back off that example."

Hi Chavis - Well, I thought I had read it all but maybe I missed some items.

The rotational mass of the MS3 is likely higher due to 1" larger brake rotors? I'm going to stick with my example actually (in which I specifically said wheels and tires)...especially since the rotational mass (not static mass) of the Aura, I believe, is a good amount more than the MS3.

Joe

Here you go, carfreak. How are things in FL?

Zoom! Zoom! Zoom!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/123674673_44e2750269.jpg

Back on topic though- these high horsepower FWD cars are going to be less and less of a factor in terms of sales. Sure, the V6 version get tested and grab all the headlines but 65-70% of buyers will be driving the I-4 versions so in the overall scheme of things, they don't really matter. Mazda seems to be a bit overzealous in creating a V6 gas guzzler during these MPG obsessed times. They should've used the 3.5L block and made adjustments to boost EPA figures by 1-2 mpgs. The 3.6L HF is already terrible on gas so I can't imagine having an engine that sucks down even more. If I don't get a CTS do to high fuel prices, I might lease a Mazda6 i. It has a load of features and gets better EPA mileage than my 2950lbs compact (there's that bad Mazda engineering again).

"The rotational mass of the MS3 is likely higher due to 1" larger brake rotors? I'm going to stick with my example actually (in which I specifically said wheels and tires)...especially since the rotational mass (not static mass) of the Aura, I believe, is a good amount more than the MS3."

The brakes rotate, do they not? The are cast iron which is a very heavy material. I believe the MS3's front rotors are 12.7" and the Aura's about an inch smaller in diameter. They both ride on 18x7" cast aluminum wheels. The Aura wears 225/50R tires while the MS3 wears 215/45s that are Z rated and likely a bit heavier compared to the Aura's all seasons.

The correct answer is "AWD". Ain't that right, SubyTrojan? :P

On topic: It's not the same engine, but I will state that when I first went from a 2.2l FWD car to my 3.5l Aura (XE), BOY did I notice some torque steer. Now? Not at all. But the car didn't change...I did.

I'd never driven such a powerful FWD car before, and so I merely had to adapt my driving technique to the car's performance & handling characteristics. So now, as I said, I literally never notice any torque steer.

"To be fair, GM has done a good job of greatly reducing torque steer in the Impala SS using traction control and beefed-up suspension geometry."

The Impala SS doesn't use traction control to limited torque steer. Please research facts before posting out of your backside. TRACTION CONTROL deals with the TRACTION of the tires and has nothing to do with sensations felt through the steering wheel during acceleration. Wheel slippage and torque steer are mutually exclusive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9tN4kJXBe0

Advanced to the 1:22 mark to see the car try to run off the side of the road when the driver takes his hands off the wheel. He says, "the MS3 has an ABUNDANCE of torque steer."

"That's why they limited power in the lower gears and give it all to you after second gear, it makes perfect sense and it WORKS."

Makes zero since to anyone with a technical background. It means the chassis engineers and the powertrain engineers had not consulted each other during development. Hence, the retarded gearing of the transmission and this last minute fix of a torque limiting system. The first two gears are ridiculously tall which is bad for a turbocharged engine as it doesn't promote adequate boost. Again, poor engineering. If this car were not direct injected, it'd be lifeless until the boost came on with approach Mazda has taken.

cx7lover, when you are ready to stop making excuses and face the facts, come talk with us. The Mazda folks are great at creating a fun chassis, not so great at making a great powertrain.

Makes zero since to anyone with a technical background. It means the chassis engineers and the powertrain engineers had not consulted each other during development. Hence, the retarded gearing of the transmission and this last minute fix of a torque limiting system. The first two gears are ridiculously tall which is bad for a turbocharged engine as it doesn't promote adequate boost. Again, poor engineering. If this car were not direct injected, it'd be lifeless until the boost came on with approach Mazda has taken.

Clearly, you've never driven an MS3, both 1 and 2 are rediculously SHORT.

There is no overcoming the traction shortcomings of a high powered FWD car, GM hasn't done it and neither has Mazda, BUT Mazda serves up an effective way to reduce the pulling and spinning greatly, again... please, why is this bad? It doesn't make the car any slower, and it handles better. Mazda did everything right, standard LSD, equal-length hardened driveshafts, and the right camber and toe in, and they still saw an issue with TQ steer, and they did a damn good job with the electronics to minmize it, drive a Caliber SRT-4 if you want to know how bad TQ steer can be.

So PLEASE if you know of a different way to eliminate torque steer, let Mazda know. The LSD, and equal length driveshafts are the only way to deal with torque steer in a FWD car without falling back on electronics to remedy the situation.

Unless you and your technical background have some excellent suggestion on eliminating TQ steer in a FWD car, your claims that Mazda fell back on electronics are completely unfounded and ignorant.

"Unless you and your technical background have some excellent suggestion on eliminating TQ steer in a FWD car, your claims that Mazda fell back on electronics are completely unfounded and ignorant."

So that we're crystal clear on what I said, I was talking about falling back on electronic power output limiting to hide engineering shortcomings, which is not the case. What more could they have done to the chassis? Answer me that Chavis??????????

misterfusion, the cars I pictured in the photos I linked are *not* MAZDASPEED6s. They're FWD MAZDA6s.

I think my popcorn is ready! I'll be back!

cars pictured*

Lack of edit FTL!!!!!!

Does anyone else think the photo in this post looks like it says "3.G" rather then "3.6"?

ZOMG Mazda obviously does a better "3" font then GM.

aka you guys need to lighten up.

"What more could they have done to the chassis? Answer me that Chavis??????????"

I already told you- they should've installed a weaker engine that the car could handle. Overpowering the chassis and then developing ways to dial

"Clearly, you've never driven an MS3, both 1 and 2 are rediculously SHORT."

This is true, I made a type and wrote tall instead of short. Why on earth does a car with this much grunt need such low gearing in the first two gears? I could see if it were an Evo that has no guts before the boost comes on but this car has plenty of displacement and direct injection which helps low end torque so they super short gearing makes little sense.

scratch the last post, it should read:

"What more could they have done to the chassis? Answer me that Chavis??????????"

I already told you- they should've installed a weaker engine that the car could handle. Overpowering the chassis and then developing ways to dial back the power is counterproductive.

"Clearly, you've never driven an MS3, both 1 and 2 are rediculously SHORT."

This is true, I made a typo and wrote tall instead of short. Why on earth does a car with this much grunt need such low gearing in the first two gears? I could see if it were an Evo that has no guts before the boost comes on but this car has plenty of displacement and direct injection which helps low end torque so the super short gearing makes little sense.

A weaker engine? seriously? Isn't that a step back? The weaker engine you proposed wouldn't make matters any better nor would it solve traction issues that come with FWD. The MS3 is a FWD homerun and it sucks that you won't admit that because of your own hate for Mazda, sucks for you.

the MS3 would have less torque steer if it had less torque. That is Chavis' point here. Mazda went for best in class hp at all costs and the result is an engine that overwhelms the car. No other FWD compact has that kind of torque going through the front wheels and that is on purpose. The car would likely be more enjoyable (although slower) with a less torquey engine.

Anyone else here want some popcorn? I'm going to make another bag.

I encourage everyone making authoritative statements about the MS3 to put those statements to the test by actually driving one, if you haven't already.

Sabastian's comments from his MS3 test drive were interesting. Personally, I didn't find the steering numb, and didn't find torque steer to be an issue -- it's got nothing on the Cooper S, for example. But I respect that Sabastian actually drove the car before forming his opinion of it.

Chavis, you say of the MS3 that "they should've installed a weaker engine that the car could handle. Overpowering the chassis and then developing ways to dial back the power is counterproductive."

Wouldn't you have to say the same of the Aura XR (minus the torque-limiting trickery), given its wheelspin/torque-steer issues, which no one seems to dispute? If the MS3's chassis is "overpowered," surely the Aura XR's is too.

-Sadlier

1487 -
Caliber SRT-4? Cobalt Turbo? They both have similar power ratings to the MS3 and have the same layout.. so what are you trying to get at? Nothing.

And ALL of them have boost limits in first and second gear. The power is limited off the line because it's necessary, after that it's at your disposal. It works.

I'm going to go ahead and pose the question, "Who here has actually driven a Mazdaspeed 3?"

If you don't raise your hand, please stop commenting about how overwhelmed the chassis is. It's not. That chassis is amazing, and does amazing things considering the F/F layout. It's not a miracle worker, and the power does overwhelm the front tires.

I'll go ahead and clarify some of my earlier statements. The MS3 has almost no torque steer when laying into the power in a straight line. In a curve, yes, it does.

So why did they build a car like this? Was it the engineers not communicating with each other? Hardly.

There are lots of folks, including me, who feel that you want more power than you need or can effectively use. Who WANT to be able to overwhelm the car's abilities. It's fun.

Mazda made this car into something great by taking a great little high-end economy car and dropping a big-ass engine (in the sense of output), suspension tuning, brakes, and steering into the car. The same sentiment behind the SRT-4, Cobalt SS, and others.

Personally, I don't want brakes that can't overwhelm the tires. And I don't want an engine that can't overwhelm the tires either (like my 06 Civic SI, which produces literally 1/2 the power of the MS3 at 3000 rpms).

Did Mazda limit the power in gears 1 & 2? Yes. Is it absolutely brilliant to drive? yes. Did they find the fine line between ACTUALLY limiting power and just ensuring maximum acceleration is achieved? Yes.

When I first read about the MS3, both the power output and the gear-limited power, I thought both were representative of a half-assed effort. And then I drove it.

And if you haven't done the same, perhaps that is why it comes off as talking out your rear-end.

Joe

P.s. The Grand Prix GXP put wider tires on the front of the car than the rear to handle all the power is was routing through the front. Of course, that decreases things like steering feel and braking capacity. So was it a crappy band-aid on an engineering faux pas? Or was the car done right?

P.P.s. Chavis - The rotational mass of the rotors is far inferior to the rotational mass of the wheels and tires...because the rotors are much closer to the hub than the wheels and tires. A 2 pound difference in rotor weight and 1" height different will not effect the suspension & ability to put down power nearly as much as a difference in wheel tire weight & height, which is what I was referring too. The Aura has a a substantially greater sized & massed power transmitting round-thingy, which helps dampen torque steer. I was actually saying it as a positive thing for the Aura in this discussion, as the MS3 is definitely over-wheeled and under-tired.

joefrompa
Thank you for putting it all in perspective.

"I'm going to go ahead and pose the question, 'Who here has actually driven a Mazdaspeed 3?'"

*Raises Hand.* I was both impressed and depressed by the Speed3. It was ridiculously fast, and also ridiculously good at becoming stationary again. It also managed to go 'round corners without a lot of drama all the while without beating up on the passengers inside. That was the good. My beefs with the car have to do with the powertrain. Lots of turbo lag coupled with a power delivery that pretty much stops at five and half thousand rpm means that the car has roughly the same size powerband as a Civic Si. This means that you have to row through the gears a lot, which wouldn't be a problem if it had a gearbox like the Si...but it doesn't. The Speed 3 also loses as a daily driver because of the droning exhaust note, which I could forgive if it sounded great when revving...but it doesn't. Oh yeah, and it torque-steered pretty violently under WOT. Overall, it reminded me a lot of a Saab 900 Turbo that I drove once. Funny thing is that I liked the Saab a whole lot because it was about 10 years old when I drove it and had bucket loads of character. I didn't feel the same about the Speed 3. Apologies to those who like this car. It really is great...just not great for me.

"Hondas have no torque" rolls eyes.

VCM is the culprit here as I will say one more time...it eliminates the performance mechanicals of the VTEC system. It voids the secondary lift profile and it employs the "economy version" of VTEC. The VCM seriously hurts the midrange torque (dyno proven) as its down 32 lbft....yes 32
lbft in the midrange compared to the V6/6MT Accord. The electronics hurt the torque on the low end as I believe ignition timing is pulled back in order to reduce power which in turn reduces torque steer.

Honda should actually be dissapointed with themselves regarding this VCM garbage. Honda should have implemented the regular (non VCM) V6 and a nice new 6AT.

The "regular" Accord V6 (V6/6MT) is a whole different beast altogether. Nice torque down low, in the midrange, and the thing has a trap speed of 101mpg just 1mph off a Mustang GT. Keep in mind this is with the simple 2 stage VTEC (intake only) and SOHC configuration.

This tells it all:

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/PopUpVideoPlayer/videoID=20175558/

hondacura4 I believe that, however, the VCM V6 is still torueless, like most Honda's. The new Coupe Accord is nice, save for the backend, just doesn't match the great-looking front end.

I think we've come to the conclusion that GM is no better than Mazda when it comes to designing a highpowered FWD car? not to mention.. The Aura could use some limiting off the line too.
:D

"Wouldn't you have to say the same of the Aura XR (minus the torque-limiting trickery), given its wheelspin/torque-steer issues, which no one seems to dispute? If the MS3's chassis is "overpowered," surely the Aura XR's is too."

Actually no Aura owner has corroborated your complaints. I have also stated (numerous times) that this issue wasnt raied in road tests. You seem to have a problem controlling the power of the car, but its not a widely documented issue. On top of that the Aura has only 251 lb-ft of torque while the MS3 is at 280lb-ft if my memory is correct.