Last post on Jun 09, 2012 at 11:01 PM
You are in the Mazda Protege
What is this discussion about?
Mazda Protege, Sedan
#8105 of 24043 Protegenic...
Feb 13, 2002 (9:10 am)
I must drive like a bandit then, because I only used to get 26mpg with my 2001 2.0 ES Protege. Even when I had the 1999 DX, I would only get like 26mpg with it. I drive 90% highway/20 city and drive at 70-90 mph on the highway.
But the thing is, I just don't get how the VW has alot more power (I mean a LOT more) and gets the same economy on REGULAR gas (the 1.8T recommends premium, but does not require it). Maybe it's because of the turbo. And my engine comes ALIVE (WIDE awake) at 1950rpm. The Protege didn't until 3500 (like everyone said) which was annoying especially with automatic.
Also, the VW has had some problems (mostly a rattle here and there- 2 to be exact), but the Mazda I had did have problems too. At least the Jetta hasn't left me stranded 60 miles from home on a Saturday morning like the Pro did (and in an underground garage at that!).
Feb 13, 2002 (9:19 am)
It's not the same engine as the 1.8L. According to the Mazda dealer it's the same engine that has been used in the 626.
Sure the Protege can handle the extra weight of passengers but what if you are on the highway with 4 passengers? And when are most people more likely to have passengers in the car? On the highway or in their commute to work?
Yes, they did reduce the Si's redline, and yes it is slower than the 1.6L with 160HP. However, Car & Driver does not that it delivers linear power throughout the rev range. The Protege does not do this. The power just STOPS after 4500RPM.
#8107 of 24043 Cindy...
Feb 13, 2002 (9:23 am)
On this forum before, Meade had done a whole synapsis on how the 2.0 was just a "bored out" version of the 1.8 engine. So that's not true? I thought it was the one from the 626, but then he said all that stuff about it being the same as the 1.8.
Feb 13, 2002 (9:29 am)
The 1.8L in the 99-00s is essentialy the same engine as the 2.0L. Physically, they are the same size, they look the same, and they are from the same engine family. The 1.8L is a de-stroked version of the 2.0L. The old 1.8Ls were different as Maltb pointed out.
I have people in my car all the time. The Civic is a dog with people in the car, highway or not. Frankly, I'm sick of talking about this. IMO, the Civic is not the right car for me. It is boring. It is appliance like compared to the Protege ES. I would have bought one if I thought it was better.
#8109 of 24043 This reads like...
Feb 13, 2002 (9:45 am)
Pros and Cons rather than Pros and Civics. LOL!
If you buy a Honda, any Honda, it's going to cost more to service. They stick you.
And insurance on a Protegé is higher than on Hondas, I don't know why either. It is considerably higher on my '01 Pro LX 2.0 than it was on the '98 Honda Odyssey, which was worth $3500 more than I paid for the Pro. Figure that one out.
Service on the Pro is cheaper, initially. I had service on the Pro this morning: Lub, oil & filter change; rotate and balance the tires/wheels - $58.76. Not bad. Rotate and balance alone was $36.95; on a Honda, just rotating the wheels is $60 and $40 for balancing.
I think the higher insurance is due to the kind of driving the average Protegé owner does in his car, fast and aggressive, sometimes resulting in big claims, which are passed on to the rest of us.
IMO, the 2.0L AT Pro is the best for merging with traffic on Interstates, much better than the 5-speed '94 Civic I owned. The low-end power of the Pro gets you up to speed when you really need it.
The other differences: The Pro feels like a bigger car with a stronger body and more able suspension at all speeds. The handling is far superior to the Civic's. The Pro's seats are more comfortable and you sit higher making it easier to get in and out. It feels like a real car, not an entry level econobox. And it looks like a real car; not a road toy meant for cruising Sonic drive-ins.
Feb 13, 2002 (9:52 am)
Regardless of whether the engine is a version of the 1.8 or the 626's engine they should've stayed with the 1.8. It had only 5 less HP and it's times are better than the 2.0L. By putting the pwoer down low Mazda has shown that the Protege is a commuter car not a sporty car. But obviously Mazda isn't too concerned about making sports cars because they axed the RX-7 and the MP3 was the "sport" version of the Protege and it only had 140HP. It just doesn't make sense to have the 2.0L engine in a car that they want to market as sporty. The drive is sporty but the engine isn't.
Whether you consider the Civic an appliance or not obviously Honda has no problem selling their appliances. I have a Protege too, that means that it was the right car at the time for me. However, that doesn't mean that the Civic doesn't have it's own virtues or that I'm blind. It's faster, gets better gas mileage, and has a reliability record that surpasses anything Mazda has built to date.
And darnit, the fact that my fiance's $3000 1993 Civic can kick my butt just ticks me off.
Feb 13, 2002 (10:01 am)
195/55-15 or 16 performance tires certainly do improve hanling vs. what comes on civics and corollas, but I think the exemplary pro es handling is mainly attributable to 2 other features.
the pro chassis is a cut down version of the Japanese capella [like 626]. As in the vw series [beetle, golf, jetta] based on the same chassis, the lighter version [beetle] has much superior handling to the heavier version [jetta, esp. the v-6].
The second reason is the pro rear suspension. the driver can feel the passive rear steering kick in during hard cornering. It's why the car mags raed the mp-3 handling over most sportscars.
#8112 of 24043 protege insurance premium...
Feb 13, 2002 (10:05 am)
I remember talking to a Geico insurance agent on the phone one day when I was getting a quote for my Protege. When she gave me the number, I was like 'Why is it so much more expensive than the other one?' she said, 'because it's a sportier car.'
SPORTIER? you're damn right it is!!!
btw the other car was a corolla I believe. This was back in 2000.
#8113 of 24043 P5 Insurance
Feb 13, 2002 (10:23 am)
Just to add my experience with Protege insurance, when I added my Protege5 couple of months ago to our insurance policy, I was shocked to find out that it's more expensive than my ML320 and slightly cheaper than my X5 4.4i. When I asked the insurance agent, she replied less safety features and younger owners contribute to higher insurance premium even if the car is much cheaper. I'm still in shock.