Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Corolla XRS vs Nissan Sentra SE-R SPEC V vs Mazda3

2»

Comments

  • biggus3biggus3 Posts: 32
    Reality, eh? When was the last time you did a burn out and preceded to run your car redline to redline up to 90 mph. Im sorry that I forgot that in reality we all run 1/4 miles every time we hit the gas.

    The whole point to the original discussion was that the 3 was a worthy competitor to the xrs and spec v. Yes it is marginally slower in straight line acceleration. But in terms of everyday driving, you wont be able to tell much difference if any. Regardless of what Motor Trend states, every other publication I have read puts the 3's handling on par or better than the XRS. And it does this while coming in cheaper and better looking. For hopefully the last time, the 3 offers 95% of the performance while being cheaper and more practical. THAT IS ALL I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY!!!
  • fa1fa1 Posts: 8
    Yes for everyday driving situations in the city and around traffic Mazda 3 is atleast as good in terms of performance as the other two cars and I have never denied that and Mazda 3 is definitely a good choice that the user might want to consider. .

    I am just trying to help the original thread creator learn the strengths of the XRS and that in it's own unique way, XRS is an amazing bang for the buck. The car was getting butchered by people because it is looks and bears the name Corolla and who have no idea what this car is about. I have absolutely nothing to gain from this. Above everything XRS is a Toyota. That is a big advantage in itself.

    I have been talking about quartermile and handling etc. for the XRS since that is a big portion behind the creation and selling point of this car. I know for a fact even taking Motor Trend out of the equation, Mazda 3 will clearly show a big difference XRS on some tough twisties. Even though Motor Trend was raving and praising the XRS handling and performance,I don't even need to listen to any magazine or any journalist to draw that conclusion for me without going into too much details. In simple words better power to weight ratio, more aggressive suspension and 150 lbs less weight is a big advantage in the corners.That is what sets them apart. Like I said before, if I take that out of the equation that it has a Toyota sport coupe (Celica) engine that costs $8k more and a suspension that makes it handle extremely well at even very high speeds then there is not much that will justify the extra cost you will pay as compared to the other Corollas LE, CE and S.

    A lot of people want to go auto cross, track racing and drag race for fun and some competitive adrenaline rush also and modify these cars who buy them tuned from the factory to begin with while keeping good practicality in the picture and not having to spend a lot of money either. The original thread creator could possibly be one of them.

    That is where XRS has the major difference with Mazda 3 is. Revving high with the F1 racing car sound and pushing hard through corners while having a blast is what this car is all about similar to RSX Type S and Celica GT-S, but it is more practical and can seat 4 while Mazda 3 offers a great package for everyday driving with pep and driving fun.

    I hope the original poster learned a bit about the XRS and can see how capable and agile this little Toyota is. If he reads through them, he will be able to see what exactly he wants and which car is best suited for him. The choice is up to him.

    I don't want to keep repeating the samething over and over again. I have pretty much described best to my knowledge the reasons why XRS is such an amazing buy for not a lot of money. I am done with this topic now. Have fun arguing.
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    It sounds like you both agree that the Corolla XRS and Mazda3 are good possibilities but that they show their strenghts differently. If someone were looking for a peppy automatic, they'd have to go for the Mazda3. On the other hand, if you dream of drag racing and squeezing out a second off your performance, than the XRS takes the cake. Most drivers who want a reliable daily driver that is both predictable and enjoyable would enjoy either car. Once the Mazdaspeed3 arrives, it would be good to see you sparring again.
  • cticti Posts: 134
    Maybe 7-8 go-karts, but not much else. Besides which if you do the math .2 secs at 90 miles per hour is 26 feet. 2 car lengths maybe and the 3 is gaining ground. I have never denied that the XRS is a faster car. Im just saying that the 3 is close and has more useable power for everyday driving.

    The cars don't average 90 mph in the 1/4 mile. That is just the final speed. A 1/4 mile time of 15.8 sec is an average speed of 56.96 MPH and a 16.0 sec time is an average speed of 56.25 MPH. The Mazda3 would be 16.5 ft behind the XRS.

    Just being picky.
  • z71billz71bill Posts: 2,000
    Think about it - if one car does the 1/4 in 15.8 seconds and is doing 90 MPH at the finish line and the second car does the 1/4 in 16 seconds and is also doing 90 (at the finish line) for the 0.2 of a second at the end of the race the second car travels how far?

    The last 0.2 is not at the average speed - but at 90 MPH (or very close to it maybe 89.9) - so it does have 26.4 feet to go before it hits the finish line.

    If you go to the races the car that has the lowest ET (Elapsed time) always wins - but the car that loses can be going faster at the finish line.

    Say 15.8 ET @ 90 MPH VS 16 seconds at 91 MPH - the car that won just got up to speed faster - even though the car that lost finished stronger.
  • redacrredacr Posts: 24
    i bet you have never been to the track.
    a difference of 4-5 mph at the traps is a substantial difference in acceleration.
    in fact, it is worse the slower the two cars running are.
    .5 secs and 4 mph is HUGE.
    with every gear, the toyota would be pulling away. as the gears go up, the pulling gets worse, since the toyota would be in its power band much longer. also, high revving short geared cars fair much better than taller geared "torque monsters".
    the difference between these 2 cars is minimal with respect to around town driving. the weight difference cancels out the mazdas low end advantage which is a only a few lb feet anyway.
  • Hi guys, interesting thread.

    Just want to make a few points ahem...

    in five years of owner-ship according to Motor Trend as our friend Fa1 likes to qoute

    it will cost you a total of $23,540 to own the XRS while

    it will cost you a total of $26,542 to own the 3

    Now keep in mind both comparisons are based on the base price not withstanding options/package. Anyway the obvious point is the XRS will actually run the owner less in the long run, so the point of the Mazda 3 being cheaper is a misconception.

    One thought from this point is; Hmmm, I like premium gas. Included in the estimate is gas usage over those five years, considering the higher EPA rating of the XRS its pretty much ties it up in econo status, in my opinion. So the fact that the XRS requires premium should not a con, if compared to the 3.

    I have to say Motor Trend is a reliable source; these numbers are not biased and are as scientific as they can possibly be.

    Which brings us to something science cannot measure; personal taste. The truth is both cars have their pros and cons when compared.

    The 3 (IMO) is better looking, by not so much, just a nudge. The XRS Being faster and maniacally fun to rev-up according to people who drove it. 3 Having a better feel for the road. XRS being a tad faster. 3 has the S trim so you can imagine it would be nice to go on a camping trip to load a handful of baggage on the back (I love hatchbacks). I understand both have nice standard stereo systems, XRS just being a little nicer. Both have nice interior, impressive for its class; 3 sporty and fun, XRS “baby Lexus” (ie. With leather interior). Overall cost bout the same, XRS forcasting a little bit better return on resale price. Performance, they both equal out despite of different areas of strength.

    Finally I don’t have money to buy either car (I drive a 2000 Nissan Sentra, it’s fully loaded so don’t talk smack), I got about 3 more years before I trade in and buy a new one. Another thing these econo cars are real nice to drive generally they are light they don’t tire you out like driving an SUV on long trips, its so fun toss them around especially if you’re on a rental. People who usually buy these kinds of cars are daily commuters and spend about 2 hours in them so in time they draw a natural affinity to these faithful rides, not the same indulgent way Ferrari or Porsche owners do. I have to say I’m still pretty satisfied with my Sentra it’s going to be hard when I have to say bye to it. Well my point is when I think about which one I would choose, if I have the money the 3 or the XRS I don’t really know, I think it will just depend on the day I actually go down to the dealerships and test drive both cars and what side of the bed I woke up on. There’s a lot of fun to be had with a car that can zoom zoom and lots as well with a car that can scream going over 7000 RPMS : T

    One thing though about the XRS is that its safety rating is well above the average for its class, where the 3 only ranked at fair, so that’s a thought if you and your carpool buddies care to live on a head on collision with a Ford Expedition? Just a thought
  • gib11gib11 Posts: 47
    isn't the corolla XRS a special sport edition car from toyota?
    If so, wouldn't it be more fare to compare it with the mazdaspeed protege (before the mazdaspeed3 comes out) instead of the stock MZ3?

    IMO...
    Has for the price. In Canada, the XRS is at least 2000.$ more than the the MZ3sport GT.
    By the way I really like the big 2.3liter MZ3 because i give ride to lots of people (often 4 people in the car) and there's lots of hills around my area (nice twisty roads also!). Drive the car in 5th, climb a really steep hill at 2000rpm (around 80km/h)...dont even need to change gears. Would that RXS be able to match that? Not sure. The torque is really low!
    I have seen the XRS and IMO its just plain fuggly. Conservative style while triing to look sporty. Yerk! No comparison with the MZ3 style wise, in an out.

    On end note
  • mazda6smazda6s Posts: 1,901
    "it will cost you a total of $23,540 to own the XRS while
    it will cost you a total of $26,542 to own the 3"

    That's $3000 for 5 years, $600/year, or $12/month. So, would you get the car you liked better if it cost you $12/month more? Or conversely, would you get a car you liked less if it saved you $12/month?
  • gib11 beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I personally think the Mazda 3 look better as well, I just dont think the XRS is Fuggly. It is fair to compare the S trim with the XRS because they have the same power range and bout the same price range as well. : ). The Thread is also about buying a new car for 2005, that leaves the Protoge out of the question.

    Mazda6s I just wanted to point out that owning a Mazda 3 is actually more expensive to own in the long run. Someone in the forum claimed that the XRS is so much more expensive, and also a lot of people think so. Mazda 3 has great quality because its not cheap (I.E. like the Cobalt or the Peon..I mean Neon). No I wouldn't mind paying $12 more a month to own the car that I want vs. the runner-up. Although $3,000 could mean a lot for some people who buys these econo cars, a young family with average income definately wouldn't mind the extra gas or insurance money a year.

    One other thought, now that I think about it if I was a family man with 2 kids I really cant see my self opting for the 3 considering the big difference in safety ratings. Anyway I'm not, I'm a 22 year old college boy so if I did have the money I would say there is a 55% chance I'll go for the Mazda3 vs. the XRS.

    I specifically like this thread because for a while now I've been reading up on the econo batch. I personally feel its the most fun to read about because of the raw nature of the cars and the target audience for which they catter to. Anyway just wanted to trow my two cents in, I'm not telling anyone to buy either one. Who knows 2006 is right around the corner, so are we even talking about these trims anyway, I'm sure Toyota will come up with a nother G-mick to change Corolla's image, Mazda 3; maybe more muscle. All I know is the all new Civic is about to come out so I personally would hold off on buying a new ride, that is if I had the cash like our buddy Pat, whos considering XRS or the Spec-V (which I don't care to recommend).
  • jmann98jmann98 Posts: 2
    I drove both the 3 hatch and XRS within a week of each other and was definitely more impressed with the 3. I haven't seen all the magazine numbers, but I know that the 3's slalom in one was that of the Acura sports coupe - type S! And it beat the tC's g force despite having narrower tires. What I found impressive about the 3 was the little enthusiast things: break feel, clutch feel, shifter feel, steering, balance, composure. And while the XRS may have more horsepower at 7k rpm, it looses to the 3 during most of the rpm band, which is to say, 99% of the time. I like my engine to have a peak, but too peaky is just stupid - look how Honda has totally backed off the too peaky thing. The lighter XRS may make up for some of that on paper, but it didn't feel this way to me. On a more subjective note, the matrix is, IMO, one of the ugliest cars on the road. All I can think is that some stodgy exec was trying to figure out was was hip, and missed. Toyotas are boring and ugly, with few exceptions. Driving the Matrix and XRS solidified my hatred of that big stupid company. The only reason I'd consider the XRS over the 3 hatch is because the XRS hatch holds more, and Toyota relibability. Driving wise, the 3 is more of an enthusiast car, while the XRS still feels like a boring, numb appliance to me. Oh, and the SE-R just doesn't have the reliability ratings, not to mention composure and refinement of the other two. Old school, but still fun. Plus its an eyesoar that Nissan needs to fix with the next model.
    -driving a modified '97 SE-R, and shopping for a 3 hatch to replace it.
  • jmann98jmann98 Posts: 2
    I don't expect much from the new Civic, except maybe another well-built nerdmobile that's underpowered. Honda just keeps getting safer and more boring with most of their cars, both in performance and looks. They seem more focused on profitability than fun. The smaller Mazda company seems much more content finding an enthusiast nitch and succeeding within it. I used to love Honda, but now I'm starting to like Subaru more! Mazda's new line up is just fantastic though. Across their brand, they build the best suspensions in the world, dollar for dollar. Is it even debatable?
  • Jmann98 we are talking about the Corolla XRS not the Matrix, big difference believe it or not, I agree the Matrix does look ugly, somthing I just cant say about the Corolla XRS.The exterior is not an eye sore (not as flashy as the 3), The interior looks and feels like a luxury vihicle (w/ leather trim). Toyota is not a boring company, they will burn Mazda in any race anytime!...Yeah I have to say m not really to Exited bout the Civic my self, but who knows right? Maybe their SIR version will pump out 180 HP's at major torque and claws the pavment more so than the 3.
  • On a climb and twisty road, I take the Corolla XRS anytime. And I dont even need to turn the radio on. The sound of the engine is music to my ears specially when I hit that 6th gear. What a blast to drive.
    What did you guys said about break feel? Steering feel? Clutch feel?
    Look at the comparo from Motor Trend. The Corolla XRS beat the hell out of the MZ3 in stopping distance, slalom speed, 0-60 and 1/4 mile. Now chew on that.
  • "it looses to the 3 during most of the rpm band, which is to say, 99% of the time"
    I have a question. What about the 0-60MPH RPM band? Or the 1/4 mile RPM band. Your not paying attention or your talking base on your oppinion. Lets be objective. Check out the Motor Trend comparison between XRS and MZ3.
  • "The XRS doesnt "look" or feel sporty"-epinions review
    Oh so you can judge a car by just the looks of it? And who is this reviewer?
    You know what? Just drive the car.
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    Lets be objective. Check out the Motor Trend comparison between XRS and MZ3

    Yes, please do be objective. The Motortrend test was performed with an automatic Mazda3.

    You can throw the acceleration figures out the window because automatic vs manual comparisons are apples to oranges. Chew on that.
  • at least I've got figures. What do you have? "By the look of it its more sporty" and "It feels faster and more agile". Show me some figures and not just opinions.

    Including in the comparison were a Cobalt LS/manual, Focus ZX4 ST/manual. Both have higher HP figure and have higher torque at much lower rpm range than a MAzda 3. XRS beat them all in performance figures.
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    at least I've got figures. What do you have? "By the look of it its more sporty" and "It feels faster and more agile". Show me some figures and not just opinions.

    I never said the stuff you put in quotes, but I will now. The Mazda3 looks WAY better and more sporty than any Corolla. Even the XRS is nerdy looking. Around town, it will feel faster than the high strung XRS.

    As to your "figures", they're worthless. Like I said before, the comparison test that you're citing tested an automatic Mazda3 vs. a manual Corolla. Is it any wonder that the Corolla was faster? The handling figures from that test are relevent, but the acceleration figures are junk.

    Here's a figure: Mazda3s hatchback 0-60: 7.4
  • "The Mazda3 looks WAY better and more sporty than any Corolla. Even the XRS is nerdy looking".
    So what ? Were talking about performance here. Isaid it before and I will say it again, Mazda 3 is the best looking compact sedan out there.

    " Around town, it will feel faster than the high strung XRS."

    Wrong again. See the figures from the comparison. 0-30, 0-40, 0-50, 0-60...I mean across the board, XRS posted the best times. And lets not say that the competition are all slush boxes. The Ford SVT and Cobalt LS are manuals and have more HP and Torque at even lower RPM comapared to Mazda 3. And they got beat. Do you expect Mazda 3 to come up with even better times than these 2 cars?
    Face the facts.
    By the way , XRS 0-60 is 7.1.
  • mdaffronmdaffron Posts: 4,421
    You know which car's side I'm on here, BUT ...

    I just looked up their test of the Mazda3 manual, and "giantkiller" is correct ... the Corolla XRS manual IS faster 0-60 and in the quarter-mile.

    But that doesn't mean it's not a boring, ugly-looking car! :cry:

    Meade
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    "The Corolla XRS beat the hell out of the MZ3 in stopping distance, slalom speed, 0-60 and 1/4 mile. Now chew on that. "

    Corolla XRS manual transmission:

    0-60: 7.1

    Mazda3s manual transmission hatchback:

    0-60 7.4


    Face the facts. Manual vs. Manual. Apples to apples. CHEW ON THAT. That's hardly "beating the hell out of".

    Also----the sedan is lighter than the hatch, so it should be a little quicker than 7.4.

    Once again, you IGNORE the fact that the Motortrend comparo used an automatic Mazda3 and a manual Corolla.
  • Okay, then I have a question for you. How will Mazda3 S 4 door/sedan/manual compare performance wise with a:

    Ford ZX4 ST/manual with 151HP@5750RPM and 145lb-ft@ 4250RPM with a curb weight of 2803lbs

    Cobalt LS/manual with 145HP@5600RPM and 155lb-ft@4000RPM with a curb weight of 2853lbs.
  • Will Masda 3/manual/sedan post better times than the Focus ZX4 and/or Cobalt LS?
  • newcar31newcar31 Posts: 3,711
    You asked for some figures, I gave them to you. The Corolla XRS isn't "beating the hell" out the Mazda3 at all. The acceleration numbers for 0-60 are so close that it'd be a drivers race. The handling limits on both cars are so high that 99% of the people will never even come close to the limits. The Corolla handles better, but rides worse. Test track times don't always tell you how the car feels accelerating around town and if you doubt that, just go drive an S2000. On paper it's fast, but unless you wring the hell out of it, it feels like a Civic. The Mazda3 WILL feel faster and more relaxed around town and that's all there is to it.

    Will Masda 3/manual/sedan post better times than the Focus ZX4 and/or Cobalt LS?

    I gave you the 0-60 figure for the MANUAL transmission Mazda3 hatchback (which is heavier than the sedan), so you can answer that question yourself.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    You two need to agree to disagree and move on. Beating each other up is neither productive nor appropriate.
  • ctalkctalk Posts: 646
    I went onto the site Modernracer.

    And the Gave the Corolla XRS 7.6 seconds
    And Mazda3s 7.5 (with Manual)

    Toyota Corolla XRS
    Mazda3 s
  • Modern racer is more on speculations than test driving, most of the info in their site is opinion or from other websites, unlike car and driver or motor trend which have a wealth of resources and actually basing their figures on test drives. 7.6 they probably got that figure from Consumer Guide, which also makes rough estimates from time to time of performance figures. So believe what u may believe, I pesonally think XRS 7.1/S hatch 7.4. Although the average driver probably wont be able to clock those kind of numbers, it takes experience to be able to know how to shift gears and on the right time.
  • has anyone ever compared these cars to a RSX type S....its kinda outta league in a way, but does anyone have a opinion...?
2»
This discussion has been closed.