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
Hatchbacks Mazda3 Mazda3 v. Honda Accord
99 messages, Last post on Jan 24, 2008 at 12:01 AM
You are in the Mazda3 Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
|
|---|---|
|
I recently test drove both the Mazda3 and Accord. I drove an M3 s Touring (2.3 engine) sedan in both automatic and manual. There is a noticeable performance improvement with the manual. I would not consider purchase of the automatic. The manual had surprising acceleration. This is a great car. Truly a poor man’s sport sedan. It is fun to drive with crisp handling and small turning circle. Nice interior for the money, but the dash instruments were extremely difficult to read with sunglasses on. The notoriously weak A/C was disappointing. The salesman had the air going strong when he brought the car around. The outside temperature was a comfortable 80 degrees with low humidity and full sun. We never lowered the fan speed to the lowest setting during our drive. It was barely comfortable. Even my old Saturn would have been frosty after 15 minutes of strong A/C. Black is the only interior color option for most of the s Touring exterior colors, so cooling could be a problem in some climates. I had read about the pedals being too close and right knee space being at a premium. The pedals were fine for me, but my shoes are only size 9.5. My knee (and I am thin) had only about 1.5 inches free on either side. However, I both raised and telescoped the steering wheel to a comfortable setting and my knee had plenty of room. The back seat is comparable in size to other cars in this class. The trunk seemed a bit small. It seemed rather narrow and short, but deeper than my 2000 Saturn S. I don't like the Side Sill Extensions on the s Touring, but it's not available without them. They lower the already low ground clearance. Not good for snow. I then checked out the Honda. I insist on stability control, but the 4 cylinder Accord doesn’t have ESC in 2007, so I looked at V6 models. I realize the V6 Accord and Mazda3 aren’t in the same class, but that’s the comparison I made. The lack of ESC in non-Si Civics eliminated them from consideration also. I don’t need leather and the other options on the expensive EX-V6, so looked at the LX, even though it’s available in automatic only. The LX-V6 sedan is smooth and comfortable, but with decent handling. Not too cushy as with Toyotas. I’ve driven four cylinder cars for decades, so the V6 seemed overpowered. I punched it on the interstate entrance ramp and it downshifted TWICE. I saw cars disappear in my rear view mirror. I don’t need this much power – it seems overkill. And as an empty nester, I don’t need this much space either. But it didn’t feel big as I drove, so I could probably live with the extra space. And I’d probably learn to love the power. The Accord has better crash test results than the Mazda and has DRL, something I’ve grown to enjoy on my existing car. So the Accord gets the nod in safety. None of the Mazda3’s other faults are show stoppers, but safety could be a deciding factor. One could argue that the M3’s sharper handling is better in avoiding accidents. Bottom line: the M3 is fun to drive, great handling, and gets better gas mileage (though not a night and day difference). Accord is smooth and powerful with better safety. And thousands of dollars more. I just need to decide if the Accord is worth the extra money. The Honda dealers around me are swimming in Accords. With the close-out sales going on, I think I could hook a decent price. I also checked out manual and auto Acura TSXs. Very, very nice. I went to the dealership with the idea that I wouldn’t even consider an automatic, but driving the automatic made a believer out of me. And the buttery smooth manual is awesome. I could live with either. The two dealers in my city are each over 12 miles away from my house, compared to less than 3 miles for both Honda and Mazda. Could be inconvenient for Acura warranty work, but not a big deal. Although price isn’t much higher than the Accord EX-V6, it’s thousands above the LX-V6. And Acura dealers don’t seem as willing to cut prices. So I don’t think I can justify $27k for a non-navi TSX. Maybe for my next car when I’m no longer helping my kids with their car insurance. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: chickenlips (Jul 25, 2007 5:37 pm) I suppose any two cars can be compared. A Yaris could then best a Porsche in terms of weight and cost. Accord is smooth and powerful I suppose a V6 would be more powerful than a 4 cylinder. I don't like the Side Sill Extensions on the s Touring, but it's not available without them. They lower the already low ground clearance. Not good for snow. That's curious: my side sill extensions can be removed quite easily. I live in the snowbelt and have not found side sill extensions to be a problem. Now snow collecting in the wheel wells, that is a problem, but that's another story. Good luck with your purchase. |
|
|
Replying to: chickenlips (Jul 25, 2007 5:37 pm) it comes with a manual, is not super expensive, has the right amount of power, has the right amount of space for you and handles better than the 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: eldaino (Aug 02, 2007 6:47 am) Other concerns include a possibly too-firm ride, premium fuel (although mileage is good), and insurance. I guess the bottom line is it might be sportier than I want. But I have salivated over them in the Honda dealer's lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: chickenlips (Aug 02, 2007 4:42 pm) I'd drive both EX MT and Si, and see which suits you better. |
|
|
Replying to: chickenlips (Aug 02, 2007 4:42 pm) but i do understand the 3's appeal with a solid middlepoint..even a 3 2.3 with an auto is quicker/punchier than even an ex with a stick.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: eldaino (Aug 05, 2007 7:01 pm) I wouldn't be so sure. The 3s 2.3 stick is only .4 seconds faster to 60 than a Civic LX with a stick (C&D comparo - Civic 7.7 0-60, 3s 7.3 0-60). It's still faster, but I'd guess a Civic stick could outrun a 3s Auto. I've even driven my dad's 2007 EX Auto Civic isn't "fast" but it is a hoot to zip around town and run to 6800 RPM once in a while!
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Aug 05, 2007 8:41 pm) i would imagine though, that the ex would be a bit slower, granted that it weighs a bit more. (perhaps the reason why c/d opted for the lx, as opposed to the ex?)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: eldaino (Aug 06, 2007 9:52 am) The EX would be marginally slower (sunroof adds weight), but I wonder if it would equal more than a tenth of a second (the difference is roughly 50 pounds between LX and EX). Also, I think the price point goal was $18,000 Sedans. I'd have to go back and double-check though. I know the Corolla they tested was only $16k and change (a top-level LE model, but with few options), so to go out of their way to get a $20k Civic wouldn't make much sense. We're splitting hairs, but I appreciate the ability to actually split hairs with someone that doesn't get defensive (that happens way too often on Edmunds). Thanks! Thegrad
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Mazda3 Mazda3 v. Honda Accord
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda Accord
2010 Mazda MAZDA3
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
