Consumer Reports 2.3L vs 2.0L 1/4 Mile

[igzy]

Overall in this Reliability study, Mazda3 got "above avg" rating for '04 and '05 models and "much better than average" for all newer models. Of all categories, the only one that got below average was paint for '04MY. All other categories and model years received average or better rating...

One thing that puzzles me is that they posted their 1/4 mile results for '08 models as following:
2.0 4-sp AT 17.4 sec @ 83
2.0 5-sp MT 16.8 sec @ 85
2.3 5-sp AT 17.4 sec @ 82
2.3 4-sp AT 17.9 sec @ 79

Is this because of trim and options so the 2.3L models weigh more and are hence slower?

[Iceman_F1]

Overall in this Reliability study, Mazda3 got "above avg" rating for '04 and '05 models and "much better than average" for all newer models. Of all categories, the only one that got below average was paint for '04MY. All other categories and model years received average or better rating...

One thing that puzzles me is that they posted their 1/4 mile results for '08 models as following:
2.0 4-sp AT 17.4 sec @ 83
2.0 5-sp MT 16.8 sec @ 85
2.3 5-sp AT 17.4 sec @ 82
2.3 4-sp AT 17.9 sec @ 79

Is this because of trim and options so the 2.3L models weigh more and are hence slower?

Did you copy that bolded section correctly? I could be wrong, but I thought that the 2.3 had a 5-sp MT and 5-sp AT...as for the times, it could be greater weight. But I also wonder how close the variables were. IE did they get the same driver to do each test? Did they do 1 run or multiples and avg. it out? Did they do the testing all on the same day or were there different weather conditions...

[igzy]

^ Yes, I did... Hence my confusion about it... In order of appearance, they are:
Mazda3i (4-sp AT)
Mazda3i (5-sp MT)
Mazda3s GT (5-sp AT)
and the last one I copied it wrong, it was Mazda5 Touring (sorry it was past midnight ). But still, the GT showed the same times as 3i...

The MazdaSpeed3 GT 6-sp MT 2.3L turbo showed 15.0 sec @ 98 mph...