Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic vs Mazda3

1356765

Comments

  • warnerwarner Posts: 196
    OK, I test drove both and bought the Mazda 3 (2.0 engine). Even the 2.0 feels much snappier than the Honda. And I purchased mine with side airbags so no advantage for the Honda for safety. In real world driving you can feel how good the handling and cornering are on the Mazda. It simply doesn't drive like an economy car.
    However, I agree with all those above about the mileage issue. In mixed city/highway (with a lot of the highway in rush hour) the my Mazda only gets 23-24 mpg with the 2.0 engine. I'm sure the new Honda would do a lot better. So you can say that Honda is a better "economy" car.


    I can live with that statement. It's obvious that the 3 is more sport oriented. If I were in that market I would have to consider the Civic Si, though too. On my brand new Civic, during the coldest Chicago December in recent history, my last tank got me 33mpg. I expect that to improve as the car breaks in and the weather warms up, which could be June with the weather we get here in Chicago! Haha.

    Warner
  • mcapmcap Posts: 49
    Wait a minute!!!!!! Where are all you Mazda owners getting safety equivalence. Crash ratings are not simply the result of side airbags. Adding them to the Mazda does NOT make it as safe as the civic. There are a lot of other design elements involved. The Civic doors have a new construction designed to take an impact from a much larger vehicle.

    Perhaps you should look at the crash test results.......

    Frontal offset crash rating
    Mazda - Good
    Civic - Good

    Rear crash rating
    Mazda - Marginal
    Civic - Good

    Side impact
    Civic - Good
    Mazda - Poor (yes...no SAB)

    1. How would an additional SAB change your rear crash test rating?

    2. There are a number of cars with SABs that still did not fare well. What makes you think Mazda is automatically "good" with them.
  • warnerwarner Posts: 196
    For those of you that seemed rather disturbed by the result of the comparo, I don't think you need to. You guys are right in that what MOST people look for in an economy car are not performance numbers, but things like standard safety features, fuel economy, and resale values. In fact, you can be rest assured that the Civic will sell as well as it always has, easily outselling the 3.

    But I don't think that car magazines need to abandon the perspective of car enthusiasts and cater to the taste of general public. If you want to know what "everyone" thinks is good, you don't have to read a car mag or log onto a car website. Just ask your friends and neighbors. Or better yet, read CR.


    Well, here's the problem with that logic....when you are reviewing an economy car, there are certain characteristics that an economy car is designed to excel at, the first of which would be....anyone? Yes, ECONOMY. Like I said in another post, what they did is akin to testing two high performance sports cars and then announcing that they chose the one that got the best fuel economy as the winner. That's NOT what high performance cars are designed to do, and nobody CARES how efficient they are. So as reviewers of automobiles, they DO have certain journalistic responsibilities to the readers...they can't just define what they like in a car when they are comparing cars that are designed for a particular purpose. Do you not agree? What if they did an off-road truck test and picked the truck that went through the slalom fastest or got the best skidpad performance, while ignoring the off-road ability or towing capacity? Who cares? It's not what those particular vehicles were designed to do well. That's the point.

    Warner
  • Here's the short story, Once Again.
    1) the of the line Mazda3 sedan( on Sept , 11th, 2005, saturday , to be precise) was around 180 dollars under 20K, MSRP.
    2) Scion tC was 17,199, on same date.
    3)Difference on this part alone, MSRP versus MSRP = 2,700 dollars.

    With me so far ?

    Now, for the "hard to understand(?)" part.....
    ADD TAXES to this extra 2,700(difference on MSRP between the top of the line Mazda3 sedan and tC)... 7 cents on the dollar=approx 189 Extra dollars IN TAXES, ON TOP OF the 2,700 dollars difference between MSRP's; so far = 2,889 difference.
    ADD to this 2,889 difference(no down payment, so we had to finance EVERY PENNY DIFFERENCE HERE) nearly 800 more dollars for financing over 5 years: Over 3,500 dollars difference, TOTAL: ADD IN THE FOLLOWING: Difference between the MSRP's on saturday, sept 11,2005. Add the 189 dollars We would have paid on TAXES on that extra 2,700 difference in pricing. Add finance charges.

    Hope this helps.

    I also bought because Mazda 3 felt subpar to us. Sorry... I did read the upped the HP on the base to 150? may be a good thing. Might attract more buyers this way, versus the modle from 05. Combine paying 3,500 more , and the car felt no better than an Elantra GT(15K car), No Way! The Mazda3 is louder, more NVH, than my mother in laws' 97 Protege DX, which is actually a fairly quiet 4(90 hp?).

    I'd rather have a Tiburon GT V6 for 18K loaded.
    No as sharp looking(?), but ya get a V6, and not as loud when ya tromp the gas.
    Honda: Nothing against them except the dealership network here is horrible: Pay MSRP is their only mantra, it appears, thsu not only did they lose 2 customers in my family, they lost 4 more on the inlaws side when they pulled the same trash last Sept, when they wanted an Element, and another wanted a Civic.

    If Honda would knock off 1,000 off of that 1,500 mark up over dealer's invoice, that would be cool.

    No such thing as a perfect car or car company. If you think there is, I had a lake I can sell you, it's called Michigan, only 10,000 dollars ;)
    Take Care/Not Offense.

    Happy New Year's.
  • I'll respond by asking two questions.

    1 - If you found yourself in a situation where you HAD to be in one of the cars while an Escalade hit you at 55mph, which one would you pick?

    2 - Which one would you want your kids or your wife to be driving? ""

    Maybe I'm missing something, but why are some people here under the assumption that the 3 doesn't have side airbags? They are standard on 3s Touring and Grand touring, and available on ANY model 3. Civic has them standard, and that's good, but anyone who wants side/head curtain airbags can get them on any model 3.

    So in that case, to answer your question, with the airbags being EQUAL, give me the one with much better brakes and handling thrown in too
  • mcapmcap Posts: 49
    Again, the point isn't simply get the Mazda3 with SABs and then the two are equal. Adding a side airbag does nothing to change the marginal rear crash test. Furthermore, adding a side airbag does NOT mean the car would have a good score for side impacts. Look at the Corolla for side impacts - rated acceptable only. SABs don't equal safety equivalence.

    Handling/breaking is not going to stop you from getting rear ended while at a stop light or prevent someone from running a stop sign and slamming into the side of your car in an intersection. With drivers driving trucks to the corner store, talking on cell phones, reading, eating, and rearranging their financial portfolios while driving these days, passive safety measures well above and beyond handling are critical.
  • warnerwarner Posts: 196
    I'll respond by asking two questions.

    1 - If you found yourself in a situation where you HAD to be in one of the cars while an Escalade hit you at 55mph, which one would you pick?

    2 - Which one would you want your kids or your wife to be driving?

    Maybe I'm missing something, but why are some people here under the assumption that the 3 doesn't have side airbags? They are standard on 3s Touring and Grand touring, and available on ANY model 3. Civic has them standard, and that's good, but anyone who wants side/head curtain airbags can get them on any model 3.

    So in that case, to answer your question, with the airbags being EQUAL, give me the one with much better brakes and handling thrown in too


    In the scenario in which the question was asked (a stationary vehicle about to be hit on the side from a speeding Escalade), the brakes and handling would be a non-issue. And to quote an excellent post by mcap:

    "Wait a minute!!!!!! Where are all you Mazda owners getting safety equivalence. Crash ratings are not simply the result of side airbags. Adding them to the Mazda does NOT make it as safe as the civic. There are a lot of other design elements involved. The Civic doors have a new construction designed to take an impact from a much larger vehicle.

    Perhaps you should look at the crash test results.......

    Frontal offset crash rating
    Mazda - Good
    Civic - Good

    Rear crash rating
    Mazda - Marginal
    Civic - Good

    Side impact
    Civic - Good
    Mazda - Poor (yes...no SAB)

    1. How would an additional SAB change your rear crash test rating?

    2. There are a number of cars with SABs that still did not fare well. What makes you think Mazda is automatically "good" with them."
  • Well, here's the problem with that logic....when you are reviewing an economy car, there are certain characteristics that an economy car is designed to excel at, the first of which would be....anyone? Yes, ECONOMY. Like I said in another post, what they did is akin to testing two high performance sports cars and then announcing that they chose the one that got the best fuel economy as the winner. That's NOT what high performance cars are designed to do, and nobody CARES how efficient they are. So as reviewers of automobiles, they DO have certain journalistic responsibilities to the readers...they can't just define what they like in a car when they are comparing cars that are designed for a particular purpose. Do you not agree? What if they did an off-road truck test and picked the truck that went through the slalom fastest or got the best skidpad performance, while ignoring the off-road ability or towing capacity? Who cares? It's not what those particular vehicles were designed to do well. That's the point.

    So let's all cut to the chase and buy a Hyundai Accent. Economy car could simply mean, car you can afford. Just because im a not wealthy doesn't mean I should be deprived of having bit of driving enjoyment.
    We could look at it this way, if the 3 vanished from the marketplace it would be sorely missed by enthusiasts. If the Civic vanish you could always buy a Corolla.
  • I didn't say that the 3 is equal to the Civic because of the SAB/SAC (please read again) I did say that the Civic was rated as a best pick by one of the gov't agencies (can't remember), but the 3 is not a death trap. I wasn't trying to say airbags automatically make a vehicle 'good' safety-wise. I am not sure if the rear pillar airbags deploy in a rear end collision, but if they do, then those could help the rear safety rating, since the tested 3 didn't have SAB/SAC.

    Let's say that from reports/pictures from owners on other forums that have been in pretty serious collisions, I feel very safe in my vehicle.
  • "Handling/breaking is not going to stop you from getting rear ended while at a stop light or prevent someone from running a stop sign and slamming into the side of your car in an intersection. With drivers driving trucks to the corner store, talking on cell phones, reading, eating, and rearranging their financial portfolios while driving these days, passive safety measures well above and beyond handling are critical. "

    And active ones are just as critical - especially in the scenerios you just described. Inattentive drivers mean that you are more likely to have to perform emergency handling and braking, as they drift into your lane, or brake suddenly. You are taking one mark - marginal for rear impact in the MZ3 testing (no SAB testing for side, so that's inconclusive as of yet) and trumpeting this as a huge victory in safety. Well, it's a victory, though we cant really say how large or small it is, but I think that YOU are missing the point if you don't include accident avoidence in the equation. It's a very big part of it
  • "Maybe I'm missing something, but why are some people here under the assumption that the 3 doesn't have side airbags? They are standard on 3s Touring and Grand touring, and available on ANY model 3. Civic has them standard, and that's good, but anyone who wants side/head curtain airbags can get them on any model 3."

    Mazda Canada doesn't seem to think we need them here. I never gave it much thought until it was brought up on the Canadian Driver forum. We get heated mirrors and an external thermometer instead. We also do not get HID lights. Honda deleted the auxillary input for the radio up here for some strange reason as well.
  • "Mazda Canada doesn't seem to think we need them here. "

    The side airbags aren't available at all in Canada?
  • The side airbags aren't available at all in Canada?

    No, but the cars are comparatively cheaper here too. Believe it or not the Focus costs more here than the 3.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,628
    It's common for the auto mags (including Edmunds.com here as a "virtual" mag) to put performance above everything else in their reviews. So why is it surprising to some here that Edmunds.com did that in comparing the Civic and Mazda3? For example, the last time C/D did a big economy car comparo, they put the Protege (Mazda3's predecessor) first. One might ask why, when it was not the most economical in fuel consumption nor the least expensive. And it was not the most safe, based on crash tests. It was because it had the best handling of the bunch. In another recent comparo of economy sedans (I think it was in MT), the Mazda3 took first place; again, it wasn't the most economical, but had the best overall performance and "fun to drive" factor.

    As someone else said, if you want to read a review of economy cars in which performance is not Numero Uno, try Consumer Reports. Who knows, maybe the Civic will come out on top when they next test small cars. It was their top choice at one time, but the prior design was later topped in their ratings by the Focus, Mazda3, and Prius. Since CR puts strong value on safety and fuel economy as well as performance in their ratings, they should like the new Civic a lot. One thing for sure: the Civic will be more highly recommended by CR than is the Mazda3, because CR will give its top recommendation only to cars that have received decent scores in crash tests. (They recommend the Mazda3, but it's their "second tier" recommendation reserved for cars that haven't received a good score on all crash tests.)
  • xquxqu Posts: 55
    All I'm saying is 3i touring with comparable options (Sun roof and ABS/SAB...) are very close on price with Civic EX and Edmunds should've compare them, not a 3s with the 2.3L engine against 1.8L in the Civic.

    Yeah, the 2.0L in 3i is still faster than Civic's 1.8L but they are a closer match, price and performance wise.

    Or use the 3i w/o option compare to Civic LX!
  • If a manufacturere builds a car for one market only (like the US Civic) it only need s to optimize it for those crash tests. That's why French cars in Europe have good crash results... cause they only need to survive European tests. The 2006 civic is different from the european model... it only needed to survive the US tests. (differences are: Europe tests offset crash the car hitting a moveable barrier with only the right or left front side while US tests hit a permanent barrier frontal etc...). A car that is sold in both "worlds" has to be muchbetter designed cause it needs to give good results under more scenarios. If you buy a VW Jetta that scores 5 stars in Europe AND in the US you have a better car than a Civic that has never been tested under European crash test conditions. The same for the Mazda 3 that is sold in hte US and in europe.
    In the end..in real life... Mazda 3 and the US civic will be very similiar.
  • chidorochidoro Posts: 125
    Well, it's a victory, though we cant really say how large or small it is, but I think that YOU are missing the point if you don't include accident avoidence in the equation. It's a very big part of it


    Why would the Civic not also be able to avoid an accident as well or nearly as well (completely ignoring driver awareness which really shouldn't be)? Because it can only slalom through a course at 65 as opposed to 68 mph (just made those numbers up). It's not as if the new Civic is a floating, top-heavy, boat sailing around just asking for trouble.
  • It's common for the auto mags (including Edmunds.com here as a "virtual" mag) to put performance above everything else in their reviews. So why is it surprising to some here that Edmunds.com did that in comparing the Civic and Mazda3? For example, the last time C/D did a big economy car comparo, they put the Protege (Mazda3's predecessor) first. One might ask why, when it was not the most economical in fuel consumption nor the least expensive. And it was not the most safe, based on crash tests. It was because it had the best handling of the bunch. In another recent comparo of economy sedans (I think it was in MT), the Mazda3 took first place; again, it wasn't the most economical, but had the best overall performance and "fun to drive" factor.

    The Protege was WAY more fun to drive and was 4 stars instead of 5 in passenger side frontal collision. The Protege's superior brakes would negate the difference. My recollection was that the Protege had a roomier interior as well, especially in the back. Yeah it uses more fuel but that's the price you got to pay for a bit of torque. Thesw were precisely the 2 cars I had to choose from back in 2003 and only one of them put a smile on my face.

    I was hoping Honda was going to one-up the 3, which would have made it a killer car but that didn't really seem to happen.
  • chidorochidoro Posts: 125
    "We prefer its interior design and functionality and we think it's a better-looking car than the Civic. Plus, it wins in any contest of performance". Can't argue with facts can't you ?


    Why bold a point you label as fact which is actually a purely subjective statement?
  • ctalkctalk Posts: 646
    Edmunds review said about the Mazda3 - "We prefer its interior design and functionality and we think it's a better-looking car than the Civic. Plus, it wins in any contest of performance". Can't argue with facts can't you ?

    You forgot to bold the "We think" ;)
    That's odviously subjective, their opinions are not facts.
Sign In or Register to comment.