Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla vs Mazda3

1343537394043

Comments

  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    11+ seconds 0-60 is fairly slow, or as you say, not quick. One thing I have to worry about is highway merging...it might be able to do it, but it'd be the worse option (though yes, I'm sure that once it gets to highway speed it can hold it). Still I could probably make do except for the following.

    The other problem is major: it barely gets 30 MPG. The Elantra beats it by 3 MPG, and is fairly close to the same weight (Under 200 pound difference). The Cobalt with it's 2.2L engine, gets better MPGs (along with more HP and torque) and is 300 pounds heavier.

    Hmm, maybe Suzuki should think about sourcing GM's 2.2L instead of using their own mill. Because that Cobalt beats the Suzuki in a 0-60 run, despite the Cobalt being 300 pounds heavier.

    Of course, at this point we're starting to get a bit off topic. :shades:
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    I concur about the Suzuki, we took one out for a test drive (Mrs. Shipo thought it was cute), and we were stunned to find that our Dodge Grand Caravans were much quicker to sixty than the "Zuki". The poor acceleration combined with the relatively poor fuel economy got it immediately crossed off our list.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    Now you're comparing apples to oranges--FWD vs. AWD. So as you say, let's get back to the 3 FWD cars in the topic. None of which is AWD. If you want that, you need to go someplace else.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Mazda is the sportiest of the bunch but terrible mileage for automatic,

    Over 30mpg's for a 2.0L with 148hp is not terrible.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The compact Mazda 3 with 148 hp gets the same highway mileage as a midsize Altima with 175 hp, and Accord with 190 hp. 23 in town is equal to the Altima as well, with the CVT. That's actually pretty amazing for Nissan, although off-topic, so I'll leave it alone.

    Give it the 5-speed, Mazda. These things spin way too high RPMs on the interstate.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    It was always that way..with the 4-speed too. The 2.3 engine just doesn't have that much low-end torque...I love that Nissan engine, but they won't attach VSC to it.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The Civic and Corolla both have low-rpm cruising gears while having less torque than the Mazda, which has an extra 500cc of displacement. Mazda just chooses not to allow it!

    And, I meant they should put the 5-speed auto in the 2.0 model.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Mazda's new 2.5 gets 30 highway, 23 city (I think) with 170hp. Pretty much on par with most other mfrgs. But, since it is not in the Mazda3 yet, no sense talking about it.

    My main point was that the fuel economy in the Mazda3 i is not "terrible" It's not class leading, but far from terrible. It's not like it's a Hemi or anything. Many owners report getting mid 30's on the highway.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    No doubt; it's certainly not terrible. You summed it up well. I'd take a Mazda 3 2.0 over a lot of other offerings in the class; the Corolla for starters!
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Since we are talking about 2.0L engines, and Nissan was mentioned (Altima), I think even though the Sentra is not listed in the thread title, I don't think anyone would have an issue with me talking about it.

    The Nissan Sentra 2.0L gets 24/31 w/ auto(25/33 w/ CVT) 140hp/147tq. The Mazda3 2.0L gets 23/30 w/ auto (24/32 w/ manual) 148hp/135tq. Pretty much dead even.

    It seems both Nissan and Mazda would benefit with having their more powerful / fuel efficient 2.5L in these cars.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Nissan has the 2.5 in the SE-R Sentra, making 180hp. Doesn't it?

    I believe there is a $16k-$20k forum we could go wake up! Wanna join me?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Where's it at? I'll come. I like Nissan's cars a lot but continually curse them for not offering ESC or traction control on the 4 cyl machines (except the Rogue for some reason...which means they COULD put it on anything with the 2.5/CVT).
  • trikev19trikev19 Posts: 18
    Hyundai doesn't sound very exciting, but you should drive the Elantra. Its fun to drive, less expensive and has a better warranty. Resale value is a problem , but no worse than Mazda.
  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    We have this in the wife's 3s and it's a hoot to drive...it's got great get up and go but does suffer in the mileage department. A smooth driver compared to my Civic and the Elantra I tried recently...beats those two in the fun factor and smoothness categories hands down.
    Had the 3 last week for my daily driver with the wife being out of town and it was definitely a fun commute. Haven't tried the 3i with the 2.0 engine as of yet but the wife said it didn't have enough grunt for her to merge onto I-95 so she went with the 3s. Her previous car was the Altima with the 2.4 and that car moved very nicely and was a real sleeper in the comfort department but with the 2002 models increase in size and weight, she went for the '05 3s.
    Still puts a smile on both our faces when we're behind the wheel, but I still prefer my '06 Civic. We will be buying 2 cars this Thanksgiving for the girls and will be trying out all the econoboxes and hoping to make a deal on the same car for both. can't wait to start the search!

    The Sandman :)
  • smallcar1smallcar1 Posts: 76
    Sandman,

    Since you have both the 3S and the Civic w/ automatic how much worse is the 3S's mileage than the Civic?
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Too bad there isn't an "economy hatchbacks" group to match. :shades:
  • will26will26 Posts: 62
    I have an 07 Ex Civic and my boyfriend just bought the 09 Corolla S. My first impression was that the corolla looks nicer than the Civic from the outside with the spoiler and ground effect package. The seats in the Corolla are more comfortable than my car. It seems there is more cushioning.
    As far as the plastics everyone is concerened about. I didn't see that the doors on the Corolla will be as scratch prone as my car. There is some cloth on the Corolla door. I already have many marks from fingernails on my inner door. I can't say the same for the stereo area. It seems like that could get scratched pretty easy on the Corolla. The back seat is not as roomy in the Corolla but the front seat seems to be about that same as the Civic in roominess. Yes the clock placement sucks in the Corolla and the arm rest could have a little cushion.

    For power the Civic obviosly wins but not by much. The Corolla has a lot of passing power but there is more of a lag when you first step on it. As for the ride, the Corolla is smoother but not by much and it is quieter in the cabin. The interior in the Civic looks more updated with the electronic controls and dashboard display. I love the digital speedomoter in mine and don't care for the amber glow of the interier at night on the Corolla.
    All in all I would say if I could choose between the two I would go with the Corolla. Love the looks of the outside and the seats are very comfortable. The ride is almost the same and the Corolla is quieter.
This discussion has been closed.