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 Article Comments - 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX vs. 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
146 messages, Last post on Dec 27, 2007 at 3:11 PM
You are in the Mazda3 Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
Article comments for
Comparison Test: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX vs. 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 - Although the Subaru's 5.9-second 0-60 time is two ticks better than the Mazda's 6.1-second clocking, it's all due to its traction advantage at launch. By the end of the quarter-mile, the two cars are dead even at 14.5 seconds and the Mazdaspeed 3 is going 98.7 mph compared to the WRX at 94.4 mph. Considering the difference in power ratings, none of this is surprising. (more)
|
It's a hard to choose between these two! Check out what our editors think and post your comments here. Comparison Test: 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX vs. 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 |
|
|
Cars seem to just keep getting better. Just a few years back there wasn't a decent performing yet affordable and safe car to be had for under the low $30K's. Too bad I bought one then. For TEN GRAND less than I have in even a low end BMW the Mazdaspeed3 outperforms it in terms of speed and is good enough in other aspects to satisfy me. Power? Check. Handling? Check. Safety? Check. Practicality? Check. I even like the quirky looks better than the E90 BMW's bangled look. I realize the differences in the cars, I just don't mind them $10,000 worth. One will likely be in our garage by the end of the coming winter. I can't tell you how nice it will be to be able to put bulky items in a car again. Two suitcases and a spare tire fill the 3 series trunk. The Subaru? I see no reason to pick it over the Mazda unless one really likes the awd aspects of the handling. Body lean...yecch.
|
|
| I've owned a Mazdaspeed3 since Oct 2006 in Vermont. In spite of what both editors say, leaving in Vermont doesn't require AWD, nor is it a reason to favor the WRX. With good snow tires - I have Dunlop Wintersport 3D - the Mazdaspeed3 did just about as well as my Audi A4 with AWD. In fact, going up hill on my driveway the Audi would often spin its wheels and the Mazda didn't. Not to say I wouldn't favor driving in the Audi in 12" of fresh snow, but 99% of the time in winter in Vermont the Mazdaspeed3 with the right tires is just fine! And it is so much fun.... | |
|
|
|
Replying to: myob (Aug 07, 2007 8:48 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: roadburner (Aug 08, 2007 5:54 am) the back seat in the 1 series hatch is nearly inhospitable. not like 'its kinda tight back there' but literally 'i cannot sit down without my knees hitting the backseat.' i prefer the looks of the mazda over the subie. i really dunno what they were thinking with regards to all the body roll in the new imprezas...subaru used to not want to be honda or toyota and appeal to everyone, and now they have alienated their loyal fanbase. i'm sure the car is great, but new models should not be less-great than the ones they replace. interesting to note the 0-60 times on the mazda though; suddenly instead of it being a murderer of sport compacts, its now only ever so slightly quicker than the competition. (the 4 door gti reviewed in the last c/d comparo with its 6.2 0-60 sprint comes to mind) its still a very nice car though, and its handling marks are undeniable.
|
|
|
Car and Driver got a time of 5.4 seconds for the Mspeed3. Most of the mags are listing around 5.8. Every car is different...and as green as this test car was (500 miles), hopefully the test driver did not want to ruin it's future reliablity by pushing it too hard. All I know is there are very few cars that can take me at a red light (except for the V6 Kia Sportage the other day when I missed a shift...but we won't mention that. 
|
|
|
Even the best drivers mess up sometime (and I am NOT including myself in that category). There are so many variables in the 0-60 time it is hard to come up with an accurate comparison. (temperature, humidity, engine age, driver differences, road surface, tire wear, etc, etc, etc) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bean3422 (Aug 08, 2007 10:42 am) Here is what Edmunds.com, Director of Vehicle Testing, Dan Edmunds, has previously said regarding Edmunds' testing numbers: Testing methods vary quite a bit and can absolutely have an impact. But it's odd to me that the fastest number is automatically considered the "best" and the most accurate. Slower numbers are therefore "bad" or inaccurate. Rubbish. This prevailing attitude creates incentives for automakes and publications to go to heroic and perhaps questionable measures to get "good" numbers. We are not the hired guns of any carmaker's PR department. Do others test with a full fuel tank? We do. Do they run regular fuel in cars NOT labelled "premium recommended" or "premium required?" We do. Do they keep the third-row seat spare tire and other items in the car? We do. Do they set the tire pressures to the carmaker's recommendation? We do. Do they know the friction coefficient of the asphalt, and if so, is it within the SAE/NHTSA tolerance? We do, and it is. (at most places anyway. Where we don't know the actual coefficient, we avoid asphalt with a too-high coefficient, we never launch on concrete and we never start on the rubber-laden start box at drag strips - an advantage sometimes.) And on the west coast, we always seem to get fully-loaded cars, which are heavier. We do weigh every car in an as-tested configuration, but cannot yet display this data on the site. We're working on that, as it provides useful context for our results. Only a head-to-head race with the same car (an impossibility, I know) under identical conditions can prove who has the "fastest" drivers. That does not exist when flipping between the pages of several magazines and websites. But is that really important? The point of these tests, in my mind, isn't a race between magazines. The point is to tell if car "A" is faster or stops better than car "B". Our methods are designed to be consistent and repeatable enough so our readers can do exactly that. I'm not worried if our numbers aren't the fastest ones published. |
|
|
One of the problems with Subaru is that they insist on installing RE92 tires on almost every car except the STi. In a standard performance test this results in an unfair comparison when the competitor is wearing summer performance tires. Both the braking, slalom, and acceleration numbers would substantially improve if the WRX wore the same shoes as the Mazda. I understand the desire to compare the stock vehicles, but in some cases a very minor amount of money invested in tires and sway bars could dramatically alter the outcome. It would be very interesting to see reviews that addressed these types of obvious differences between the cars in a manner similar to what the owner might do themselves. Overall I am a bit disappointed in the new WRX. I sure hope the upcoming STi is still a pure performance machine.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mckman (Aug 08, 2007 12:15 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Mazda3 Article Comments - 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX vs. 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Mazda MAZDASPEED MAZDA3
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
