Author Topic: 3 Facelift??  (Read 18745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sk4tec

  • Ultimate Class
  • ******
  • Posts: 2145
  • Gender: Male

1998 Peugeot 306 XSi 16v
1999 VW Passat 1.8 Sport
2002 Golf Mk IV GT TDi 150
2005 Mazda 3 Sport 2.0 (Petrol)
Current: Seat Leon MK II FR 2.0 TFSi DSG

Offline Anth

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Gender: Male
  • Body: Hatchback
  • Colour: Soul Red Metallic (41V)
  • Engine: 2.2L
  • Fuel: Diesel
  • Model: Mazda 3
  • Transmission: Manual
  • Trim: Sport
  • Year: 2014
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2011, 03:57:52 PM »
Hmm..... this should be interesting.

Maybe sami can confirm?

Offline daunorubicin

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 665
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2011, 09:44:46 PM »
--daunorubicin--
Mazda 3 MPS SAK - SilverVision rear indicators - Richbrook TDH - LED boot, plate, map and glove - XCarLink iPod adaptor and bluetooth - Sharks Fin Aerial - Clear fog light - EBC Red Stuff - DBA 4000 Discs

Offline Willpower

  • Administrator
  • Super Ultimate Class
  • *
  • Posts: 6472
  • Gender: Male
  • East Anglia Mountain Rescue Team
  • Body: Saloon
  • Colour: Winning Blue (27B) Metallic
  • Engine: 2.0L
  • Fuel: Petrol
  • Model: Mazda 3
  • Transmission: Manual
  • Trim: Sport
  • Year: 2004
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2011, 10:13:55 PM »
Actually I prefer this one  (with a subtle colour change of course)

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 11:01:28 PM by Willpower »
Look at life through the windscreen, not the rearview mirror.
2004 Winning Blue 2Ltr Sport Saloon.  Laser Blue Main beams.

Offline Mindis

  • Ultimate Class
  • ******
  • Posts: 1366
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2011, 10:21:12 PM »
If we are going this way  ;D

 

Offline Anth

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Gender: Male
  • Body: Hatchback
  • Colour: Soul Red Metallic (41V)
  • Engine: 2.2L
  • Fuel: Diesel
  • Model: Mazda 3
  • Transmission: Manual
  • Trim: Sport
  • Year: 2014
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2011, 01:57:16 AM »
If they put the sky engines in the facelift version, it will instantly knock a huge chunk of value off any of the original 2nd gen cars

Offline daunorubicin

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 665
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2011, 12:49:54 PM »
Another thought occurs... If the AA are to be believed then Day Time Running Lights (DRLs) will be mandatory on all new cars from February 2011.
If the Mazda 3 MK2 doesn't currently have DRLs then a facelift might be required to fit them so they can be sold. This may or may not coincide with the new engines.

No requirement to fit DRLs on existing cars and no requirement for cars without DRLs to run with dipped headlights on at all times.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/safety/daytime-running-lights.html
--daunorubicin--
Mazda 3 MPS SAK - SilverVision rear indicators - Richbrook TDH - LED boot, plate, map and glove - XCarLink iPod adaptor and bluetooth - Sharks Fin Aerial - Clear fog light - EBC Red Stuff - DBA 4000 Discs

Offline Anth

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Gender: Male
  • Body: Hatchback
  • Colour: Soul Red Metallic (41V)
  • Engine: 2.2L
  • Fuel: Diesel
  • Model: Mazda 3
  • Transmission: Manual
  • Trim: Sport
  • Year: 2014
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2011, 05:31:18 AM »
Yeah, I think the regs state that any car which is built from feb 2011 onwards must have drls.

Doesn't matter if the car was designed before then. I've been trying to find what the mazda DRL's look like, but can't find anything... makes me wonder.

I like the BMW ones, but the audi stuff is chav.

DRL's wil increase fuel consumption though, especially if they are bulbs as opposed to LED's...   petrol already costs enough.

Offline 185sport

  • Sports Class
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2011, 03:15:37 PM »
The DRL regs state they must be low-energy ones, so they can't simply wire up the dipped headlight bulbs to be always on.  In addition they should go off when the headlights are on.

See here.
2010 2.2d[185] Sport Hatchback in Black Mica

Offline Anth

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Gender: Male
  • Body: Hatchback
  • Colour: Soul Red Metallic (41V)
  • Engine: 2.2L
  • Fuel: Diesel
  • Model: Mazda 3
  • Transmission: Manual
  • Trim: Sport
  • Year: 2014
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2011, 11:50:37 PM »
The DRL regs state they must be low-energy ones, so they can't simply wire up the dipped headlight bulbs to be always on.  In addition they should go off when the headlights are on.

See here.

Yeah, I've read an article which cited a study that said it's between a 0.5 and 1.5 percent effect on economy.

At worst, it'll cost the average motorist £20-£30 a year....


Offline 185sport

  • Sports Class
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2011, 08:46:46 AM »
IMHO they'll use less power than your radio.  Surely no-one avoids using that to increase economy.
2010 2.2d[185] Sport Hatchback in Black Mica

Offline Anth

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Gender: Male
  • Body: Hatchback
  • Colour: Soul Red Metallic (41V)
  • Engine: 2.2L
  • Fuel: Diesel
  • Model: Mazda 3
  • Transmission: Manual
  • Trim: Sport
  • Year: 2014
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2011, 02:55:02 PM »
IMHO they'll use less power than your radio.  Surely no-one avoids using that to increase economy.

Yes, but they'll use it in addition to the radio....

I'm not saying that I'd not use them (I wouldn't have a choice). If they look nice, I'll probably pay to install them.

However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Offline 185sport

  • Sports Class
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2011, 03:12:14 PM »
However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents.   :o

The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?

IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle.  ;D
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 03:14:18 PM by 185sport »
2010 2.2d[185] Sport Hatchback in Black Mica

Offline Anth

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 738
  • Gender: Male
  • Body: Hatchback
  • Colour: Soul Red Metallic (41V)
  • Engine: 2.2L
  • Fuel: Diesel
  • Model: Mazda 3
  • Transmission: Manual
  • Trim: Sport
  • Year: 2014
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2011, 04:13:11 PM »
However, think of it this way:

How much extra fuel would all the cars in Britain that have DRL's burn over a year? Is the safety increase worth this?

Especially when the data that suggests they provide a safety increase is flawed in it's relevance to the UK.

If someone can't see a car in daylight hours without it having lights on, they shouldn't be driving one themselves.

Surely that's a bit of Daily Mail thinking? Oh noes, the increased fuel usage due to DRL will outweigh the savings made by having less accidents.   :o

The increased fuel usage due to DRL is infinitesimal especially with all the other bits of electronics in modern cars. Sure over all new cars fitted with DRL it will all add up, but it's nothing to get excited about.

Do you have a reputable source that shows DRL's won't reduce accident rates?

IMHO the simple way to cause less accidents and to increase fuel economy is to fit a wooden block underneath the loud pedal on every vehicle.  ;D

If by Daily Mail, you mean logical, then yes.

I don't think it's a case of it outweighing the cost, but how easy is it to say for sure that DRL's prevented an accident, ergo, had they not been on an accident would have occurred.

Surely saying that DRL's decrease accidents is a kin to saying speed cameras stop people speeding or that speed humps reduce accidents.... the speeds humps probably do, but the cameras...?

The basic logic is that DRL's make vehicles more visible in countries that are well inside the northern hemisphere - most of Scandanavia and Canada would be good examples; these countries have a low level of natural light during the day.

DRL's in the UK aren't really needed most of the time, sure we have days when natural light is low, but on a whole...


Yes, no doubt the fuel usage on an individual basis is quite small when compared to radios and climate control, but to quote a clever chap I know, 'that be some daily mail thinking'

You have a choice as to whether you have climate control or the radio on, but you have no choice over the DRL's.

Erm, as for reputable sources, well if you mean whitepapers...

There are several that relate to DRL's causing various types of visual distress here

Here is a quote I pulled of the same site....

“RoSPA’s view is that if cars are fitted with Daytime Running Lights, then there is much concern that the conspicuity of other road users without DRL will suffer.  The risk is that when drivers are making observations and looking out for other road users, that drivers will search for the DRL on other vehicles rather than surveying the whole scene and spotting vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

“This is a serious concern as research has shown that ‘looked but failing to see’ errors contribute to 23 per cent of unimpaired drivers’ accidents during daylight, and a more recent report identified that 32 per cent of all accidents were caused when road users ‘failed to look properly’.  Cyclists are at a risk of suffering a serious injury if hit by a car and so being spotted by other road users is important to a cyclist’s safety.

“Although the counter argument would be that DRL may make it easier for cyclists to spot cars, enabling them to plan an ‘escape route’ to prevent an accident if the car were to pull out, it does not address the issue of drivers making poor or incomplete observations and failing to spot a cyclist."
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) “Care on the Road” newsletter February 2007


The site is obviously against DRL's, so take it with a pinch of salt... but there you go.


Yup the wooden block sounds good to me....

Just to clarify,I don't think that DRL's will decrease accidents in the UK, but those beemer ones look chuffing pimp.

Offline 185sport

  • Sports Class
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
  • Gender: Male
Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2011, 05:04:07 PM »
I think it will.  Odd argument to state that because some folks won't have DRL, they'll be proportionately more likely to have an accident.

As you say, hard to tell really as so many other things are also being introduced to try to drive down the accident rate.

I think that bikes (motor and cycle) will also be forced to use some from of DRL in the future as well.  We all know just how easy it is to not "see" a cyclist.  If I was still cycling I've no doubt I'd be running pair of the brightest flashing DRL's you can get.

As an aside, maybe the anti-DRL brigade should consider aircraft.  I've no idea how long they've had to have nav and anti-coll lights, but I 100% know for sure they have saved lives.  When I was serving in the RAF in the eighties there were a number of mid-air collisions that the accident board felt could have been avoided with better anti-coll lights on the Tornados.
2010 2.2d[185] Sport Hatchback in Black Mica

Mazda 3 Forums UK

Re: 3 Facelift??
« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2011, 05:04:07 PM »