Last post on Oct 10, 2013 at 7:50 AM
You are in the Mazda3
What is this discussion about?
Honda Civic, Mazda MAZDA3, Sedan
Dec 26, 2005 (7:14 pm)
I have driven both cars.
Mazda - I drove the hatchback 3 w/ manual trans - the hatch is only available in S trim, so it had a 2.3 liter engine. It handled very well - tight in the corners, good road feel, decent power - (I really like a tight suspension) the interior was, i felt, intuitive, and reminded me somehow of a sports car's dash. Being a hatch, it was eminently practical for carrying big things.
Honda Civic - I drove both manual and automatic trans - my original feelings about automatics has been reconfirmed - I hate them. I like the stick. The car was slightly underpowered, but for an economy car, it worked. I really liked the interior - seats were comfortable, it was quiet (relative to the 94 Corolla I'm driving now). I love the dash - (except for the digital speedo - I agree wholeheartedly with the article on that score). I like all the little nooks and crannies (for glasses, change, wallets, ez-pass, i-pods etc..). The dash controls were intuitive enough. On top of it all, claimed 38 mpg is a big deal. Handling was not quite as tight as the 3, and I can't see the hood of the civic.
I disagree with the article on the stereo system, I think that the 3 had a better sounding stereo.
But guess what? I bought the civic (lx manual) - here's why.
The 3 looks funny to me (someone somewhere wrote/said something about a clown car, and it stuck), whereas I really like the exterior of the civic.
I can get used to not seeing the hood (like i did in our minivan)
I figure the handling, performance, and sound aren't something that a few shopping runs in NOPI for a new suspension (eventually)and WeeBee Audio for new speakers can't take care of
Since I have four kids, the full complement of airbags, sensors in the seat for determining the size of the passenger, and the flat floor (the better to stuff a third kid in the middle of the rear seat)are all factors.
I already have a minivan so I don't really need all the practicality of the hatch (although if honda offered a civic hatch i would take it), and the folding rear seat should take care of any larger than normal stuff.
And the DEAL BREAKER for the 3 - its Ford affiliation. The last time I had a ford, I was happy when someone hit me and totaled it (about 30 miles after warranty expired), thankfully ( the shuttle driver from the ford dealership [good dealership, bad car] knew me by name).
I just have to figure out where to put the cb radio (call me a geek, but that radio has paid for itself many, many, many times over - not for speeding, of course, speeding is illegal )
#3 of 1341 Best place to put a CB radio
Dec 26, 2005 (7:46 pm)
would be a museum!
10 - 4 Good Buddy!
#5 of 1341 I agree
Dec 26, 2005 (10:04 pm)
with the comparison. The Mazda 3 is truly an amazing sedan. I prefer the styling of both the exterior, and interior. It drives better, and just simply feels more upscale IMO. The only thing I have trouble getting over, is the Civic's safety. I seem to put safety as one of the top things I look at on my list. If the Mazda3 had the Civic's safety, then it would be the perfect economy sedan IMO (a little more space would be good also)
#6 of 1341 Wow.....
Dec 27, 2005 (6:45 am)
So, they took 2 economy cars and liked the one with better performance? WHAT? I bought the Civic because I was looking for a safe family car to cart my wife and 3 kids around in. If I wanted a performance car I'd buy a Corvette, not a Mazda 3, thanks. And as much as they didn't like the Honda's dash layout, I MUCH prefer it to the traditional layout; so that certainly becomes a matter of taste. So too with the styling, which I really like as well. It sounds like they didn't like the looks of the car and it couldn't compete with the other ECONOMY car on the skidpad or racetrack. How many people are going to buy an economy sedan based on it's skidpad and racetrack performance again? I'd think the 25% better fuel economy might make more of a difference than 7/10ths of a second over the course of a quarter mile, hmm? I have an idea, let's compare two high performance sports cars and then pick the one that gets the best fuel economy. This follows the same logic as this review. Oh, and after you get done using your Mazda 3 at the track (yeah, right!) and are ready for a new car, let us know what kind of trade in value you've got on the Ford...oops, I mean Mazda.
#7 of 1341 Re: Wow..... [warner]
Dec 27, 2005 (7:01 am)
Right on Brother!
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)
#8 of 1341 Civic VS Mazda3
Dec 27, 2005 (8:31 am)
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"
#9 of 1341 Re: Honda Civic vs Mazda3 [pat]
Dec 27, 2005 (9:51 am)
The tests and conclusions were laughable.
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.
#10 of 1341 Ah yes, the usual Honda rebuttal.
Dec 27, 2005 (11:56 am)
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.