You are here: Forums Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic vs Mazda3

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

What is this discussion about? Honda Civic, Mazda MAZDA3, Sedan

Messages Page 7 of 134 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 134 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#61 of 1333 Re: Missing the point [mrblonde49] by chidoro Dec 28, 2005 (12:38 pm)
Replying to: mrblonde49 (Dec 28, 2005 10:34 am) Well, it's a victory, though we cant really say how large or small it is, but I think that YOU are missing the point if you don't include accident avoidence in the equation. It's a very big part of it   Why would the Civic not also be able to avoid an accident as well or nearly as well (completely ignoring driver awareness which really shouldn't be)? Because it can only slalom through a course at 65 as opposed to 68 mph (just made those numbers up). It's not as if the new Civic is a floating, top-heavy, boat sailing around just asking for trouble.
#62 of 1333 Re: Here's the problem.... [backy] by gosteelerz Dec 28, 2005 (12:49 pm)
Replying to: backy (Dec 28, 2005 11:52 am) It's common for the auto mags (including Edmunds.com here as a "virtual" mag) to put performance above everything else in their reviews. So why is it surprising to some here that Edmunds.com did that in comparing the Civic and Mazda3? For example, the last time C/D did a big economy car comparo, they put the Protege (Mazda3's predecessor) first. One might ask why, when it was not the most economical in fuel consumption nor the least expensive. And it was not the most safe, based on crash tests. It was because it had the best handling of the bunch. In another recent comparo of economy sedans (I think it was in MT), the Mazda3 took first place; again, it wasn't the most economical, but had the best overall performance and "fun to drive" factor.   The Protege was WAY more fun to drive and was 4 stars instead of 5 in passenger side frontal collision. The Protege's superior brakes would negate the difference. My recollection was that the Protege had a roomier interior as well, especially in the back. Yeah it uses more fuel but that's the price you got to pay for a bit of torque. Thesw were precisely the 2 cars I had to choose from back in 2003 and only one of them put a smile on my face.   I was hoping Honda was going to one-up the 3, which would have made it a killer car but that didn't really seem to happen.
#63 of 1333 Re: Maybe you missed this sentence [user1234] by chidoro Dec 28, 2005 (12:53 pm)
"We prefer its interior design and functionality and we think it's a better-looking car than the Civic. Plus, it wins in any contest of performance". Can't argue with facts can't you ?   Why bold a point you label as fact which is actually a purely subjective statement?
#64 of 1333 Re: Maybe you missed this sentence [user1234] by ctalk Dec 28, 2005 (12:56 pm)
Edmunds review said about the Mazda3 - "We prefer its interior design and functionality and we think it's a better-looking car than the Civic. Plus, it wins in any contest of performance". Can't argue with facts can't you ?   You forgot to bold the "We think" That's odviously subjective, their opinions are not facts.
#65 of 1333 Re: Here's the problem.... [warner] by spinzero Dec 28, 2005 (2:46 pm)
Replying to: warner (Dec 28, 2005 8:29 am) they can't just define what they like in a car when they are comparing cars that are designed for a particular purpose. Do you not agree?   Warner, but the fact of the matter is that apparently there are A LOT of people that are interested in more than just the economy in an economy car. As someone pointed out, even the Civic to many is not the most economic choice. For a starter, it has been THE most expensive "economy" car of the market, until the 3 came along with available leather and HID. In fact, even the last gen Civic was priced right up at 18K range, which many criticized to be the domain of the midsize sedans.   So why did you pay that extra to get the Civic? I guess it's because it had the things that you value in an economy car. (and you are the majority) But I'm pretty sure that many things you label as "economy-car-like" would not appeal to others. One can argue that a Moonroof does not inhance the economy of an economy car. So is the alloy rims, interior fit and finish, a good steering, and a revvy engine with 6800RPM redline.   You criticized Edmunds as if it represented a ghost demographic that does not exist, but the FACT is that you are hearing from a lot of people on this board alone that agree with Edmunds. Along with the fact that 3 has been selling very well, I think it is incorrect for you to conclude that "no one" cares about fun in an economy car.   As far as your comparison to high performance sports cars go, I bet that CR will pick a "sensible" one over the fastest one. That's just what they do. So if I was a performance enthusiast, I would not read CR to get advice on high performance cars. Same with the Inside Line. It's an online car mag, and even though it's a lot more CR-like that the off-line competitors like C&D and M/T, it's still a car mag, not a consumer mag. (nothing wrong with that)   These guys spend time and resources to take these cars to the track and do all kinds of performance tests, just as a good car mag should. And again, as you see here, there are enough people that want to hear about it. So why is that so bad?
#66 of 1333 Re: Unfair comparison [allfiredup] by slamdunk Dec 28, 2005 (3:26 pm)
I agree that it was miss comparison test. If you want to compare 2.3 l. Mazda, compare it with Civic SI. Otherwise, compare 1.8 l. Civic with 2.0 l. Mazda. My conclusion (1.8 l. Civic vs 2.0 l. Mazda) : 1. The look of interior and exterior are absolutely subjective things. I like it much better in Civic, especially interior. 2. Performance very close. Nobody is going to race anyway (0.5 sec. or 0.7 sec, ha ha; whoever gets faster start from the light it wins). Who's gonna be driving through the curves 130 kmh. or more. One in 10.000 maybe. I also have Mazda Millenia S with 210 HP. The problem is that in 99.9 % of my driving time, I'm not able to utilize even 30 % of its capabilities. It's like you have a racing horse that you only walk around. So, once in a while I take Millenia out of the city to please myself. We are talking about economy class, performance not that important. Civic and Mazda3 are not performance vehicles. 3. Civic is more refined and comfortable vehicle. I'm 6.6 and I had problem driving Mazda 3. The central console is too wide and I was rubbing my leg on it and on the steering wheel all the time which made me having a problem steering. Of course that I had to pool the seat back, but than only my eight old son was able to sit behind me. There is no way I could shift manual. Simply, no room for my leg. If I would lift the steering wheel, my driving position would be awkward. In the Civic I have absolutely perfect driving position, visibility and comfort. 4. Fuel economy is clearly on Honda side. 5. Cannot get better in safety than Civic. 6. Five or ten years down the road when the replacement time comes, I would rather have Honda than Mazda ($$$). 7. Breaking - Don't drive like an idiot and you wont have a problem stopping with either car.   My choice was so obvious. All points were going in Honda's favor ( except 0.5 sec slower through the cones, ha, ha). So, two months ago I purchased the Civic LX five speed. It was my first Honda and I'm very happy. Replies to this message: spinzero (Dec 28, 2005 3:57 pm) kk2482 (Dec 28, 2005 5:55 pm) spinzero (Dec 28, 2005 6:06 pm)
#67 of 1333 Re: Unfair comparison [slamdunk] by spinzero Dec 28, 2005 (3:57 pm)
Replying to: slamdunk (Dec 28, 2005 3:26 pm) I agree that it was miss comparison test. If you want to compare 2.3 l. Mazda, compare it with Civic SI. Otherwise, compare 1.8 l. Civic with 2.0   I disagree. Si is clearly designed as a track car, a pocket rocket. It is a class above the rest of the Civic, and the 3.   Regardless of how much money Honda loses on every Si sold, the competition for the Si would be the likes of SRT-4, Ion Redline, Cobalt SS, and WRX. Once the Mazdaspeed 3 shows up with D/I turbo and AWD, it will also be a direct competition to the Si. Replies to this message: kk2482 (Dec 28, 2005 5:55 pm) spinzero (Dec 28, 2005 6:06 pm)
#68 of 1333 Re: Unfair comparison [spinzero] by kk2482 Dec 28, 2005 (5:55 pm)
Replying to: spinzero (Dec 28, 2005 3:57 pm) There isn't a Mazdaspeed3. Replies to this message: spinzero (Dec 28, 2005 6:06 pm)
#69 of 1333 Fun vs Economy by gosteelerz Dec 28, 2005 (6:00 pm)
If you are driving enthusiast and want some fun in your ride then you must take the Edmund's comparison at face value.   If your main concern is cost of ownership then you probably can't go wrong with the Civic.   The irony is that the Civic of the 90's were fun driving machines which probably contributed to it's resale phenomenon it enjoys now. IMO the Mazda3 better personifies those dearly departed Civics than does the current Civic.
#70 of 1333 Re: Unfair comparison [kk2482] by spinzero Dec 28, 2005 (6:06 pm)
Replying to: kk2482 (Dec 28, 2005 5:55 pm) Yes, which is why I said once it shows up. Maybe they'll never make one, although I think they eventually will. But the lack of an all-out sporting version does not put the regular 3 in a place to fight against the Si. It'll be like comparing an Acura TL to an STI. THAT will be an unfair comparison.

Messages Page 7 of 134 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 134 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Honda Civic Honda Civic vs Mazda3