Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic vs Mazda3
1333 messages, Last post on Jun 06, 2008 at 5:37 PM
You are in the Honda Civic Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: warner (Dec 27, 2005 6:45 am) Could not have said it better myself! Some people put so much stock in track times, 1/4 mile times, etc.....but when it comes right down to it....the Civic has everything needed in a nice economy car with the added bonus of STANDARD safety features that other cars either don't have or you have to pay big time as an option! Hey Warner.....Happy Motoring!!!! :o)
|
|
|
In the test done by Inside Line - the Mazda3 got 22 MPG VS 29 For the Civic - that means the Civic got 31% more MPG - at $2.17 per gallon thats almost $2,400 is savings. Add that to the $2,400 lower sticker price and the (my guess) $3,000 more (for the Civic) you will get at trade in time and what do you get? $7,800 less on a $19,000 purchase - thats over 40% savings? I would still take the Mazda3 - I didn't buy the Mazda3 to save money. But I do agree - if you are doing a comparison of ECONOMY cars MPG is more important than 0-60 times. Any car that does not return at least 25 MPG should be automatically rejected because its - NOT AN ECONOMY CAR. I will give Inside Line some credit - they did state "If MPG is important then you should buy the Civic" |
|
|
Replying to: pat (Dec 26, 2005 3:09 pm) It was an economy car comparison test. Why was economy dismissed so readily? "At first, the $2,400 difference in cost between our test cars was a major concern, but then we realized we could do without the $1,335 moonroof/CD changer package on our 3. Without it we'd have a car that cost only $1,000 more than the Civic." They were so biased towards track performance and their subjective opinions on looks and so eager to justify the added cost of the Mazda that they didn't even mention that since the Mazda is an older design, much larger dealer discounts are available than you will be able to get on the Civic fow some time. However, that does nothing for the Mazda's resale value or fuel costs. It isn't as if the Mazda performed better without a cost penalty. |
|
|
|
|
I knew all I was going to read about is how great the Honda's fuel economy is and the side airbags. Well you can always get the 2.0L Mazda3 which would make fuel economy a non-issue. As for the SAB's one could argue that 12 ft of braking distance and better handling to avoid accidents would certainly be a fair trade-off. Some of us do want performance cars and would love a Vette, but guess what, most of us cannot afford one and we still have to lug our kids around. We should be happy that Mazda builds a car that is actually fun to drive and at the same time affordable to the average Joe.
|
|
|
How did they get a LX to price at MSRP of $19,610? I can only assume they compared the 2.3S to the EX because it numbers don't make sense. $1k to buy a better car? Very odd that this went through editing as listed. Otherwise, it's obvious the 3 is an impressive vehicle. The Civic appears to be an emotional vehicle choice, ie. you love it or hate it. This match-up seems to side with the latter. A 9.6 0-60 for the Cvic? Seems awfully slow compared to other comparo's. The sheer negativity towards the Civic is pretty surprising to say the least. There are just many questionable observations that contradict other reviews. That is usually because it was due to an emotional backfire. Edit: It already looks as if the comparo edit team is trying to rectify the initial post-up to adjust EX from LX.
|
|
|
Replying to: gosteelerz (Dec 27, 2005 11:56 am) These are very important advantages of the Civic in this segment (the economy sedan) and SHOULD be mentioned and SHOULD carry much more weight than seven tenths in the quarter or a couple mph in the slalom. These are not areas where an economy sedan is supposed to do well. Chances are if an economy sedan does well in these areas, it's moving rapidly away from the "economy" part, as we see with the Mazda. Well you can always get the 2.0L Mazda3 which would make fuel economy a non-issue. Sure you could. It still wouldn't get the same fuel economy that the Civic gets, though. And I'm sure some of that "fun" factor would go away with that model as well as it drops 10 hp and gobs of tourqe from the 2.3 liter engine. And again, it wouldn't have the resale value that the Civic has. As for the SAB's one could argue that 12 ft of braking distance and better handling to avoid accidents would certainly be a fair trade-off. The braking IS an advantage, no doubt about it. However, your contention that this is an equal trade-off for the airbags (and other crash-related safety features that the Civic has that the Mazda doesn't) is not realistic unless you feel that all accidents where the airbags would be deployed would be your fault. Those great brakes and handling aren't going to help you if someone blows a light and wacks you while you're sitting still. Some of us do want performance cars and would love a Vette, but guess what, most of us cannot afford one and we still have to lug our kids around. We should be happy that Mazda builds a car that is actually fun to drive and at the same time affordable to the average Joe. I understand completely. Without making some sacrifices in other areas (where I'm not willing to make them currently), I cannot afford a Vette, either. If this is a worthwhile compromise to you, then the Mazda may be a worthy choice. I just did not feel that the comparison was based on the correct criteria for an economy sedan. If a real sports car is not an option (like it isn't for me), I think it's better to realize that you're not going to have one than it is to try to turn an economy car INTO one. But hey, everyone does their own thing and that's what's great about living here. Warner
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: warner (Dec 27, 2005 12:38 pm) Sure you could. It still wouldn't get the same fuel economy that the Civic gets, though. And I'm sure some of that "fun" factor would go away with that model as well as it drops 10 hp and gobs of torque from the 2.3 liter engine. And again, it wouldn't have the resale value that the Civic has. Real world fuel economy would amount to less than $100 bucks a year. In fact, according to a Consumer's Union report, the 3 gets better real world mileage than the previous gen Civic. Also, the 2 litre still produces more torque than the new 1.8 litre. The resale value of the Civic is the number one selling feature of the Civic IMO. I think Mazda suffers from the "Ford" stigma which is unfortunate as the the 3's predecessor was equally as reliable as the Gen 7 Civic. As for the SAB's one could argue that 12 ft of braking distance and better handling to avoid accidents would certainly be a fair trade-off. The braking IS an advantage, no doubt about it. However, your contention that this is an equal trade-off for the airbags (and other crash-related safety features that the Civic has that the Mazda doesn't) is not realistic unless you feel that all accidents where the airbags would be deployed would be your fault. Those great brakes and handling aren't going to help you if someone blows a light and wacks you while you're sitting still. Twelve feet can put you into an intersection where a pending t-bone could occur. Also, you can greatly diminish your chances of encountering a side impact by checking before entering an intersection. On a side note those A-Pillars on the Civic, are in a bad spot and can impede your field of vision. Ironically this was an issue with Volvo's as they bolstered the pillars for roll-over protection.
|
|
|
Replying to: gosteelerz (Dec 27, 2005 1:04 pm) I guess this depends on how many miles you drive per year, no? With the 2.0 engine, you are right that the Mazda gets close to the fuel economy of the Civic (but probably only with the manual trans - put autos in both cars and I think the numbers would start to move apart further, in the Civic's favor). In fact, according to a Consumer's Union report, the 3 gets better real world mileage than the previous gen Civic. That possible. I'm not sure what last year's numbers were. I know that I got a lifetime average (over 41,000 miles) on my 2004 Civic of 35mpg. But we aren't comparing previous models, we're comparing the new models, like the comparison that they did. Also, the 2 liter still produces more torque than the new 1.8 liter. I was actually comparing the Mazda 2.0 to the Mazda 2.3 since one of the selling points of the Mazda (in the article) was it's powerful engine. The 2.0 liter engine only has 10 more HP than the Civic engine, instead of the 20HP advantage that the 2.3 equipped model had. How much of the extra "fun to drive" factor evaporates with the loss of 50% of it's power advantage over the Civic? The resale value of the Civic is the number one selling feature of the Civic IMO. I think Mazda suffers from the "Ford" stigma which is unfortunate as the the 3's predecessor was equally as reliable as the Gen 7 Civic. Agreed. I don't really know if there's a legitimate REASON for the Civic's (and Hondas in general) higher resale value, but it DOES exist and must be accounted for when comparing vehicles. As for the SAB's one could argue that 12 ft of braking distance and better handling to avoid accidents would certainly be a fair trade-off. The braking IS an advantage, no doubt about it. However, your contention that this is an equal trade-off for the airbags (and other crash-related safety features that the Civic has that the Mazda doesn't) is not realistic unless you feel that all accidents where the airbags would be deployed would be your fault. Those great brakes and handling aren't going to help you if someone blows a light and whacks you while you're sitting still. Twelve feet can put you into an intersection where a pending t-bone could occur. Also, you can greatly diminish your chances of encountering a side impact by checking before entering an intersection. On a side note those A-Pillars on the Civic, are in a bad spot and can impede your field of vision. Ironically this was an issue with Volvo's as they bolstered the pillars for roll-over protection. Twelve feet can't put you anywhere you weren't already if you're sitting still. If you are approaching an intersection at 60mph and wait until the last possible second to brake, yeah....you lose 12 feet. Is that a realistic real-world scenario? I'll let you decide. As far as visibility issues, I have not noticed any in the Civic. About the only visibility related issue that I can comment on is that the outside mirrors appear to get dirty quicker than I remember on other cars. It could be this crappy weather that we've been getting fairly consistently here in Chicago....not sure. The pillars are never a visibility factor for me, though. Warner
|
|
|
Replying to: chidoro (Dec 27, 2005 12:30 pm) It all boils down to personal preferences, likes and dislikes. So if you see an article etc on the civic from someone proned to liking honda their opinion will be slanted to that effect. Likewise with the Mazda 3. Bottom line though, isn't it great that we have choices. I drive a 3 and love it probably as much as someone who is driving a honda civic, but i am not going to begrudge them for making that personal choice as each car has something to offer depending on where one's priorities lie. This imo does not make one car better or worse than the other when it comes to these two fine automobiles. |
|
|
|
|
A lot of the pro-Civic comments I've read so far mention the much better resale of the Honda versus the Mazda. It got me thinking, just how well has the Mazda3 been holding its value? I know the used Mazda3s I've looked at over the last few months seemed quite pricey, near the cost of a new one. I did compared an '04 Civic EX 4-door with an '04 Mazda3 s 4-door and here is what I found using Edmunds TMV- Price New Private Party/% Dealer Retail/% Mazda3 $16,615 $13,546/82% $15,542/93% Civic $17,260 $14,272/83% $16,176/94% The verdict- the Mazda3 loses no more than 1% more of its value than the Civic. That translates into less than $200. Resale value is NOT a valid argument in the Civic vs. Mazda3 battle! Personally, I've driven several Honda Civics as well as Accords, a Prelude and an Acura Legend- a total of eight since 1988. They were all exemplary vehicles. When I started shopping for a new car again this year, I started at the Honda dealer. The '05 Civic wasn't bad at all, but I wanted to wait for the '06 to show up and see what it was all about. In the meantime, I drove lots of others including the Mazda3. The Mazda impressed me as sportier, better handling, more powerful and better looking. After driving the '06 Civic EX, I was convinced the Mazda was the best choice for me. The biggest drawback was the Civic's exceptional fuel economy, but the Mazda's driving dynamics more than make up for it. I also love the fact that the Mazda feels and drives like a car costing twice as much. Honda's funky interior design as well as the lack of an engine upgrade were significant strikes against it, IMO. I also found the Civic's restricted interior/exterior color combinations to be a problem. Performance DOES matter to a lot of people shopping in this class. Just because we want a smaller vehicle or one that doesn't cost $30k doesn't mean we want to drive something slow, sloppy handling or boring. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic vs Mazda3
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Honda Civic
2010 Mazda MAZDA3
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
