Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic vs Mazda3

1192022242565

Comments

  • "The flagship of the Mazda3 range, the all-new Mazda3 MPS, will give sports-minded customers a double dose of Zoom-Zoom driving fun."
    I think this statement can be intepreted to mean that the Mazdaspeed3 will be available in both 4 and 5 door versions. I hope the Mazdaspeed3 hp is more than the standard 244hp available in the Mazda CX-7, hopefully 250+ :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I think this statement can be intepreted to mean that the Mazdaspeed3 will be available in both 4 and 5 door versions. I hope the Mazdaspeed3 hp is more than the standard 244hp available in the Mazda CX-7, hopefully 250+

    I hope it is offered in both. IMO it would be best in the sedan. I don't see the 5-door selling all that well. Just look at the Impreza WXR wagon, not very popular.
    Also, on hp....since the rumor is no AWD, 250hp may be too much...lot's of torque steer possibly a problem. But, who knows?! I can't wait to see it!
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    From the Mazda press release:
    With its compact, lightweight body and substantial power generated by its 2.3L MZR DISI TURBO petrol engine, Mazda3 MPS is one of the most powerful high-performance sports compacts with front-wheel drive (FWD) on the road today.

    I support the Mazdaspeed 3 as a FWD if it avoids the weight gain of the AWD Mazdaspeed 6. This will enable it to be nimble with less HP.

    My hunch is that the Mazdaspeed 3 will be :
    a) over 200 hp making it 25% more powerful than the Mazda 3;
    b) under 220hp to avoid additional parts to handle torque steer and related problems and to differentiate it from the pricier Mazdaspeed 6.

    What would truly amaze is if the Mazdaspeed 3 were lighter than the Mazda 3; I doubt this will happen. Bigger engines in lighter cars, now there's an idea!
  • All this talk about the Mazdaspeed 3 has me laughing, lets be realistic here. If history repeats itself, and everyone knows it does, the mazdaspeed is only going to be 40-50 horses more than what the regular mazda3 is now. Remember the mazdaspeed protege??? 170hp. Getting back to the initial comparison. Honda is conservative and sells to the conservative crowd. Mazda is more adventurous and less practical and sells to those consumers. But in the U.S. Honda dominates sales with the civic because of driveability,safety and fuel economy, not its handling and 0-60. My point is two cars aimed at different markets, as you can read by the review, the editor is definitely giving a review that is biased towards the performance/handling market. The Si sedan against the mazdaspeed3 should be a interesting comparison, providing the tester isn't looking for a luxurious ride, plush leather, wood grain accents.... etc.
  • "All this talk about the Mazdaspeed 3 has me laughing, lets be realistic here. If history repeats itself, and everyone knows it does, the mazdaspeed is only going to be 40-50 horses more than what the regular mazda3"
    ...I guess we have to wait to see who gets the last laugh. the same direct injection engine in the Mazdaspeed6 get 278hp and a similar version in the upcoming Mazda CX-7 SUV outputs 244hp. What makes you think that engine in the mazdaspeed3 will make anything less than 200hp? If history repeats itself, and everyone knows it does, Edmunds will once again pick the Mazda over the civic. ;)
  • Actually it is pretty funny about the MazdaSpeed6. They wanted to make it stealth so that police, etc. wouldn't notice. The problem is that people want to be noticed, want to be unique, want to stand out and therefore the Mazdaspped6 hasn't sold that well, too stealth and too like its slower, lower cost brethren.

    Torque steer is funy. It you make the torque arms the same length you eliminate torque steer. Even so being said, when you get up to 200 horsepower an above you start begin reaching the limits of what front wheel drive can handle. Each tire and it s contact with specific road becomes critical.

    There is a magical point where to further enhance perfromance and to make traction consistent a car must gow to RWD or AWD. The 1990 Ford Taurus SHO put 220 HP to the fronts wheels and went to enormus lengths to design equal length torque arms and did a very good job (Even Ford makes a good car every once in a while!). Some FWD have even gone as high as 300 hp with equal length torque arms and sticky tires. But genrally anything above 200 Hp you experience torque steer or tire scrubbing on turns with FWD above 200 Hp.

    Currently driving a 237 HP RWD car,

    MidCow
  • qddaveqddave Posts: 164
    What's a torque arm...... :surprise:
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Actually it is pretty funny about the MazdaSpeed6. They wanted to make it stealth so that police, etc. wouldn't notice. The problem is that people want to be noticed, want to be unique, want to stand out and therefore the Mazdaspped6 hasn't sold that well

    Mazda was not aiming for the STi/EVO crowd with that car. They projected buyer is more or less going to shop Audi A4, Legacy GT and BMW 325Xi. Also, the MS6 buyer is not a compact, econobox on steriods buyer, therefor, they don't want to be noticed. People that want to be noticed are usually trying to compensate for something maybe?...if you know what I mean.... There are luxury appointments that are not available on the STi/EVO. Not to mention a much more pleasant ride, if you don't want the extremely rough ride. The MS6 has been selling well.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    All this talk about the Mazdaspeed 3 has me laughing, lets be realistic here. If history repeats itself, and everyone knows it does, the mazdaspeed is only going to be 40-50 horses more than what the regular mazda3"
    ...I guess we have to wait to see who gets the last laugh. the same direct injection engine in the Mazdaspeed6 get 278hp and a similar version in the upcoming Mazda CX-7 SUV outputs 244hp. What makes you think that engine in the mazdaspeed3 will make anything less than 200hp?


    Well, actually, the Mazdaspeed 6 has 54 more horses than a regular V-6 model, like pedalonright said, the CX-7 has 43 more than the Tribute. I'd expect a nice, round 225 at most from the 3, mainly b/c torque steer would kill the "fun to drive" factor with too much power.
  • I own a 2005 Mazda 3s 5-door w/ Xenon & ABS package...
    since we dog sit right now we got the owners 2005 Honda Accord (it's a leasing, and I think it is a value edition w/o cruise, but with curtain airbags...it hast the 2.4 l engine).
    Driving, power is similar, I suppose mileage is similar too. Shifting (both MT) in my opinion is better in the Mazda (both cars have less than 10,000 miles). I suppose rear passengers have tiny bit more room in the Accord. The Accord trunk is a little bigger, but the hatchback in hte Mazda makes it roomier and more usable.
    the overall quality:
    I think the Mazda is more refined, has better clothing material. The Accord clove-compartment is ridiculous compared to the Mazda. Teh Mazda trunk has fancy cover material and has nice little plastik boxes under the floor. the Accord has a cheap trunk interior and the same cheap floor like the civic/hyundai.... whatever. In my opinion the Mazda 3 is almost comparable to VW.
    I know, this is a civic/Mazda 3 comparison. But the Accord is supposedly better than a civic, still not as good as the Mazda. I had the 2006 Civic for 30 minutes at a dealership and was little disppointed cause of the trunk interior, etc. (not to mention the speedometer..:-).
    I personally compare the Mazda 3 3 door to an Accord.... the civic is no comparison when you look closer.
    when I buy a Mazda 3 5 door grand touring I get Xenon, leather.... everything for a couple of grand less than an Accord EX or EX-L(which doesn't even offer Xenon light).
    Back to the civic:
    Maybe economywise the civic is slightly better when you buy a civic LX (than I'd compare it to a Mazda 3i touring) and ignore the higher price.... but the Mazda still is nicer (definitely better looking) and drives better (the civic LX still has rear brake drums etc..).
    Mileage difference doesn't justify the higher price (unless you drive 50,000 miles a year :-)
    i personally pay 2$ a week at the gas station more, but love my car..... My wife and i get comments on parking lots from strangers what nice car we have. did a civic owner ever get that? Everytime i drive my car I don't care about the payment anymore.... and that is priceless.
    A car you love you keep for many years. with the money you save by not having to sell you car you can buy a nicer car and love it...
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    In my opinion the Mazda 3 is almost comparable to VW.

    Let's hop not. Have you heard of VW's troubles lately?

    Maybe economywise the civic is slightly better when you buy a civic LX (than I'd compare it to a Mazda 3i touring) and ignore the higher price....

    This proves how little you know about what you are comparing. The mileage does not change on Civic's different trim levels. Only on transmissions (in which both blow Mazda out of the Water (show me a 40 mpg Mazda).

    I think the Mazda is more refined, has better clothing material.

    OH, that's a good one (ROFL).

    In all seriousness, you are entitled to your opinion, as much so as I am mine. The Accord is a common benchmark in interior finishing, with precise movements, and a feeling of everything being like a "well-oiled machine."


    I suppose rear passengers have tiny bit more room in the Accord.


    How about a lot more. It's actually enough to put it in a whole different class from the Mazda. I don't suppose the Mazda is an EPA midsize, is it?

    the Mazda still is nicer (definitely better looking)

    Wow; who made you Mister subjective? The Mazda is nice looking if you like a flat, unstyled rear and a bulbous nose. It is also nicer if you like a louder engine and rougher ride. I think "Sportier" is a more appropriate word, and I will never say the Civic (except Si of course) is more sporty than a 3.

    I suppose Mazda offers several options not offered on Civic; but in the same respect, I'm still waiting on a Hybrid 3. How about a coupe model? How about anything over 30 mpg in town? Nothing? Ok. Write back next year when you have the Mazdaspeed 3, then we'll have something to talk about.

    PS: Whose 3-door Mazda did you drive? I've never seen one.
  • Torque arm is a phiscs principle. It is measured in foot pounds or newtown metere.

    Think of a yardstick with you hand at the 3 ft mark pressing 10 pounds of force. The torque arm is the 10 lbs multipled by the 3 ft of 30 ft.lbs. Now lessen the leverage distance to 2 feet and the apply the same 10 lbs. Then you have 20 ft lbs.

    Now envision a car that pushes a force of 10 lbs on each front drive wheel. If both wheels are 3 ft apart then the torquearm on each wheel is the same 30 ft lbs. But what if the distance on one side wwere only 2.5 feet theneyou would have unbalance torque and it would favor the 3 ft side.

    Cheers.

    MidCow.

    P.S. -Jusat dropped the stock exhuast. Will Install Invidia tomorrow.
  • Well, actually, the Mazdaspeed 6 has 54 more horses than a regular V-6 model, like pedalonright said, the CX-7 has 43 more than the Tribute. I'd expect a nice, round 225 at most from the 3, mainly b/c torque steer would kill the "fun to drive" factor with too much power.

    Pedalonright seems to imply that Mazda was incapable of producing anything that has more the 40-50hp than the regular model. The CX-7 is not related nor meant to replace the Tribute, and puts 244hp to the front wheels. if torque steering was not an issue for Mazda in the CX-7, I doubt it will be for the Mazdaspeed3 with a similar hp. Correct me if I am wrong, I dont think torque steering is related to the weight of the vehicle.
  • by comparing it to VW I meant the interior, the overall quality (not reliability, of course :-)
    I used the civic LX as an example because it has similar equippment like the Mazda 3i touring (but civic LX still has no rear discs... that much about safety for all :-)
    of course the trim level doesn't affect mileage (except little weight). By economywise I also include the price (which you have to pay like you have to pay for gas etc.).
    the 3i touring is 1000$ less than a Civic LX. with 1000$ i can pay for the MPG difference for a while (Civic: 30/38 MPG, Mazda 3i: 28/35 MPG)
    the Accord I drove (maybe it's a value edition) shows pure metal in the trunk.. my Mazda (which is a 5 door... sorry about the 3-door typo) has all metal covered with clothing material, which is far better and doesn't wibble around like in the Accord (again, it might be a value edition with cheapier interior..)
    By no means I say the Accord is bad... if you want a big Sedan, it might be your car.... but I compare cars for their usable space (sorry, the hatchback is priceless, even with 2 cft less than the Accord), driving is comparable and mileage should be comparable too (don't fight over 2 gallons/year)
    i agree.. the Accord has more room in the back... I (6ft)can sit comfortably in the Mazda in the back behind the driver seat that is set for me... if you have 7 ft guys in the back you needed an Accord
    the Mazda3 engine is not louder, nor does it vibrate, I suppose honda doesn't offer a balance shaft... Mazda has one... there is not more noise than in the Accord.
    all the comparison.... of course, the Accord will be a little better (since bigger) but also way more expensive.
    my point is, the Mazda 3 is way better than the Civic, close to the Accord (depends on what you are looking for) and will be little less economical than the civic. you get better brakes (2006 ones even have brake assist), more room, way more power (also below 2000 rpm :-), larger wheels...can have xenon, heated seats, leather... of course that all will make a car less economical at some point.... but not much

    about the hybrid... maybe there will be a hybrid Mazda when it actually pays to have one. the Accord hybrid (at least the 2005 ones) have 6-cylinder engines and get almost the same mileage like the 4 cylinder non-hybrids..... so you basically pay 5000$ to have the hybrid sticker, a clear conscience and future expenxive repairs... and barely save any money on gas... why would Mazda jump on that wagon?
    I do like to see a car in the near future that needs less gas AND gives me zoom zoom driving..... but it has to be economical (which includes the price of the car and depreciation and unknown repairs)
    anc, can you actually buy a Honda hybrid without being on a wait list and paying more than MSRP?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Ok, after reading through this, i don't think we are that far apart in our mindsets. Here are a few things I'd add.

    First of all, that Accord you tested was likely cheaper than the Mazda 3 when optioned as you say (A Value Package Accord is about $18.2k).

    I have the drum brakes on my 1996 Accord (LX/no ABS) have lasted 157,000 miles (still have life in them)(the discs on the front lasted 130k), and will lock up on dry pavement under a panic stop. I'm not sure what more you would get with rear discs than drums other than less brake fade (reduced braking power after numerous panic stops).

    The hatchback is a bonus which I wish the Civic would bring back, but as far as interior room goes (I'm 6'5"), the Accord def wins out (I have a sunroof in my EX and I don't hit the ceiling).

    Also, you mention the noiser Accord...the refreshed Accords are much quieter than the 03-04 models. What year is the Accord you drove? I'd be interested to know.

    the Accord hybrid (at least the 2005 ones) have 6-cylinder engines and get almost the same mileage like the 4 cylinder non-hybrids

    You fail to mention its horsepower is nearly 100 more while achieving better mileage than the 3 or Accord I-4.

    As far as the Hybrid goes, I was referring to the Civic (since it is a Civic forum), but since you mention the Accord, the Hybrid Accord, when tested by the EPA standards, achieved better numbers than the Mazda 3S, or Accord I-4, all while delivering about 260 hp (on the old standard, same as Mazda SAE tests.) Yes, it costs more, which is why I was hoping to refer to the Civic Hybrid. Mazda only jumps on the Hybrid wagon when "mama Ford" tells it to; i.e. Tribute hybrid (shares w/ the Escape/Mariner).

    I think we need to drop the Accord out of the discussion about now; its not really relevant to most people shopping the Mazda 3/ Honda Civic, and we owe it to them to get back to facts and opinions about those cars.

    Thanks for the little "mini-debate" though, herrkaleu, as I'm glad to see some people that can debate ideas and not make it personal, as so many tend to do.

    thegrad
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    (in which both blow Mazda out of the Water (show me a 40 mpg Mazda).

    Last I saw the Civic gets 38mpg. and the 3 "i" get's 35mpg. I don't think that constitutes "blowing the Mazda3 out of the water"

    Wow; who made you Mister subjective? The Mazda is nice looking if you like a flat, unstyled rear and a bulbous nose.

    I really don't see much more in rear styling of the Civic, or the Saturn-like front end.

    I suppose Mazda offers several options not offered on Civic; but in the same respect, I'm still waiting on a Hybrid 3. How about a coupe model? How about anything over 30 mpg in town? Nothing? Ok. Write back next year when you have the Mazdaspeed 3, then we'll have something to talk about.

    Well, Mazda3 is available in a 5-door, and the Civic is not. I also believe there is a 3 coupe (Mazda Axcela?) in Europe, unfortunalty not here :( . I don't think we will see a 3 Hybrid anytime soon...that sucks too.

    PS: Whose 3-door Mazda did you drive? I've never seen one.

    Mazda used to make the MX-3. Which was a 2 door hatch based off the 323. If Mazda were to make a Mazda3 coupe again, it will be called the MX-3, again. "MX" stands for 2 door piston engine cars built by Mazda. "RX" refers to rotary powered. "CX" refers to crossover vehicles, and "MAZDA+#" is a piston driven sedan.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Check the numbers, the Automatic Civic gets 40mpg on the highway. 5 mpg in the economy class is a good bit, IMO. Plus, if you are touting the superior powered 3s (as many do when trying to bash the Civic as being underpowered), the deficit drops to a whopping 9 miles to the gallon. The Civic will give you an extra ninety miles for every 10 gallon fillup. To me, that's four round trips to school (because I drive on the interstate most of the trip).

    I know about the past Mazda coupes, MX-3, MX-6 (Ford Probe) and the like. I meant current automobiles. The Civic has a 5-door in Europe, so I'd call it a wash if you are comparing Euro models too.
    I don't need a history of the Mazda, btw. I have had a subscription of Road and Track, Motor Trend, and/or Car and Driver for ten years. I know a few things about cars, Mazdas and others.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I decided to do a comparo between the Mazda3 i Touring and the Honda Civic Hybrid.

    To packaged both out to be as similar as possible. I did the Mazda3 i Touring with an automatic transmission, 6CD/moon roof package, ABS/SAB/SAC package and wheel locks. Price with destination was $18,775
    The Honda Civic Hybrid was packaged with an automatic transmission (I think thats standard), and the 8 CD package and wheel locks. Price including destination was $23,023.

    Now, without adding state sales tax, or motor vehicle fees, or dealer fees the the difference in price from MSRP to MSRP is $4,248. If I take that number, I can buy, according to todays gas price of $2.28/gallon, 1863 gallons of gas to equal the price of the Honda Civic Hybrid. That 1863 gallons of gas will get me 63,342 miles on the Mazda3 i Touring on the highway. If I were to go around town it would be 48,438. I do a combo of both, so I made a median number of 55,890 miles.

    I drive close to 12k miles a year. I would get little over 4 1/2 years of driving the Mazda3 to equal the initial cost of the Honda Civic Hybrid.

    Not calculated was owner maintenance, oil changes, tire replacement, and any other necessary owner maintenance, or fuel consumption of the hybrid in that 4 1/2 years. Also not calculated was the inflation price of gasoline over the next 4 1/2 years, for I have no way of knowing that.

    This is just my perspective of how a hybrid would not be a really good decision if I were considering these two vehicles.

    I am neither a Honda Civic owner, nor a Mazda3 owner.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,618
    No surprise here. I don't think a hybrid can make financial sense for anyone driving only 12k miles a year, if they would buy a compact car instead of the hybrid.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I don't know of anyone saying it was VERY cost effective to buy a hybrid, but for those who drive their Hondas forever (like me), it would make a difference over the years.

    The majority of this forum is probably interested in comparing the 4-door conventional versions of the cars, though, since that's the only models they have in common. A Civic hybrid would be better compared to a Prius, and a 3 5-Door is best compared with a Toyota Matrix, etc...

    Thanks for some interesting info on the subject, though.
Sign In or Register to comment.