definitely replace the FWS, the rest of the window tints are acceptable.

save for the engine capacity, the 1.5 doesn't lose out a lot in terms of essentials when it comes to kit. the only gripe would probably be the absence of reverse sensors.

if you have the budget then go for the 2.0 but the 1.5 is fine as well.

you won't be able to tahan for 3 days if you drive very often during the day especially in the afternoon

if you just slap on another layer of tint (assuming it's a much more expensive one) on the original skytint, the adherence of the former will be compromised and you'll probably get premature peeling or those "bubbles" that you see with cheaper tints.

if your shop did not brief you; the act of slapping another tint on top of another will have void the warranty (ie: no free installation when shi- hits the fan).

so TS, do thread cautiously though.

i was under the impression that everyone would go for a higher grade tint if they intend to re-tint the FWS but if your SA is giving you a layer of standard grade trim for free then yeah, going for the double layer is absolutely fine since there's no loss here but i'm not sure everyone would be fine in taking the time bringing the car over to the shop to have the problems (that might occur) rectified.

i am always a bit paranoid when it comes to car safety so i'm unsure of the effect of having double layers of tint stuck to the FWS. for instance if there's a need to break the FWS to escape the vehicle, would the extra layer rendered it impossible

i think "under power" is the wrong term to use, more like "not powerful". the 1.5 has enough power to let you do what you want to do without any headaches and i think it is partly due to how the whole chassis reacts with each other to always keep the engine between the torque band. then again power is a very subjective interpretation.

forget all about c-segment, d-segment jargons and dive into the numbers. for comparison, my previous 2.0 Accord has a torque to weight ratio of 0.124 and this 1.5 has 0.112 (a meager difference of 0.012) and yet the Mazda feels more eager while the Accord feels sedated.

i was also skeptical about the 1.5 previously but it's just how the car drives - it's a feeling that's very difficult to express/describe, you need to experience it yourself (go for a test drive ). you'll barely notice its smaller capacity engine however if you frequent long journeys (eg: highways or long straight drives) then the difference becomes rather obvious.

thus, if you have the budget then go for the 2.0. i chose the 1.5 because i didn't want all the safety suites and they didn't have a "2.0 High" variant like they do for the sedan.

i don't think the schedule regular maintenance after the 6 years free service will be any significantly higher than that of a Honda or Toyota because logically speaking, if they are expensive then Bermaz wouldn't offer to give owners free in the first place, yes?

then again, I'm sure all of our income would have either double or maybe tripled by then.

i wouldn't worry too much about this. after all, it's still a Japanese make car and they ARE reliable.

gear ratio is redundant if you only have 94bhp/110nm puling a 1.6 ton behemoth. i know this because i drove a 1.3 Proton Gen.2 before, the aggressive gear ratio does not help.

if wallet has only RM10, how to tarik also cannot tarik to last for 2 days gua.

7k rpm red line is "very low"?

not "short shift" per se, the gear shifts at its most optimum rpm, if short shift means lose out on fuel economy already

max torque at 4000rpm, max hp at 6000rpm.

i noticed that on normal city driving, the gear shifts up between 3500rpm ~ 4000rpm, if under hard acceleration then it drags all the way to =/- 5000rpm but never 6000rpm.

so far, i have only had the opportunity in redlining it (@7000rpm) heading up to Gohtong Jaya (with Sport Mode).

only for the CKD models. not the CBU ones.

yeap, agreed. the "slow" is rather quick which makes it quite annoying when the rain isn't heavy enough to warrant frequent wipes resulting in the wipers scrubbing against the FWS.

by default, the "intermittent dial" on the stalk adjusts the sensitivity of the automatic wipers but i think i came across an option in the infortaiment for you to turn off the automatic wipers, allowing you to use "intermittent" wiper as it is.

will check on that later.

i supposed it will be turned into the usual "intermittent" function where the speed is fixed by the sensitivity dial rather than being varied depending on the raindrops being picked up by the sensor.

that's about the reported HP on paper so no surprise there (i assumed you are referring to the 1.5 litre engine) and how much HP are you expecting Mazda to extract out of a 1.5 litre engine

the difference between the 1.5 and 2.0 can only REALLY be felt when the cars are doing straights otherwise they both drive relatively similar because instead of slapping on the same gear ratios for different engine variants like all other car manufacturers do, Mazda actually gives the 1.5 a different final gear ratio.

do you mind sharing the link to the said dyno test? should be an interesting read / watch .

115whp from a 2.0 litre engine is very close to a 30% output loss and assuming that the loss is consistent through the same chassis then this would mean the 1.5 litre only has 80whp (which definitely doesn't feel like so).

i don't see in any of the 2 links where it shows the dyno charts / results which shows the WHP is at 109. do you mind pointing me to the right direction?

odd numbers indeed because if the actual WHP reading is only 109, that would mean the engine loses almost 35% of its bhp to parasitic seepages which is very very bad and given the reputation that MAZDA engineers are very particular in achieving cleaner / leaner burns, i don't think this is natural.

they literally invested and designed an engine from ground up just to have an engine that is 15% more efficient therefore having a 35% parasitic loss on paper is just, counter intuitive for them.

though i cannot argue the numbers provided by the maker but i have my reserves. judging from the aftermarket tires itself, i'm sure that there is more modifications than meets the eye and it is proven for a fact that some modifications can bring more harm than good.

I agree. the loss is, weird.

out of curiosity, i did went to the maker's instagram page and scroll through some of his posts and found this:-



while's there's a dip in the HP but the torque numbers are pretty much spot on. at this juncture, i dare not even say what the maker actually did to his car that causes so much loss in HP.

he probably messed up his car or tried a 2nd class ECU remapping leading to all these weird results.

the 2.0 Skyactiv engine in the Mazda3 reached peak power at 6000rpm and peak torque at 4000rpm and the ones in CX3 shares the same peak power rpm however much lower peak torque rpm.

the only reason i can see why MAZDA raised the peak torque rpm in the Mazda3 is probably to provide a larger power band which would translate to a smoother power delivery. who knows, MAZDA may have also purposely raised it so to give it that "zoom-zoom" sensation but then again, no loss since the engine in the Mazda3 is slightly more powerful than the ones in the CX3.

as for the maker's 109whp claim, i really like to believed that he messed up the ECU or something alike because at that rate, our 1.5 Myvi can literally outrun the Mazda3 in straights.

both with each owns pros and cons - there's no absolute LSP (yet). your car coating will serve you good as well.