Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Civic vs Mazda3

1235744

Comments

  • Civc Si , only two adults. Well actaully most of the time that is what I fgot the car for. But The Si and EX coupe can accomodate adults in the backseat. However, I wouldn't go on long trips. The backseat is actaully more roomy thatn the GSR and/ot BMW M3 sedan I had.

    Sorry, have to disagree with you about the EX coupe's backseat.
    I've sat in it after adjusting the front seat to my driving position and I'm not tall, under 5'10". The back seat is just as uncomfortable if not as unusable as those of "real" sports cars--only comfortable if you enjoy riding with your knees shoved into your armpits, or close to it. Even short trips in it would not be fun. Don't know about Si.

    Also sat in the back seat of a 06 BMW 325. That was also surprisingly cramped for a sedan of that size. Seems these cars just cost more every year, which is normal, but end up less practical.
  • Everyone gets soo preachy about driving manuals.

    I completely respect every person's right to get an automatic or manual, whatever they prefer. As long as the carmakers give us a choice, I'm happy.

    I do think a manual is the more fun choice and its the one for me, but then again I only have a five mile commute each way daily. I drove a stick in stop and go traffic over an hour each way for years and I still didn't want an automatic, although I was 19 years old at that time. Who knows, if I had that kind of traffic now, even I might change my mind.

    But as it stands, I love my manual tranny! It was tough as hell to find, even on a Mazda3, but was well worth the trouble. FYI, the manual in the Civic is a gem, too.
  • I don't think the Civic Si automatically makes you look like a member of the "Fast and Furious" crowd. It's a great looking car with an incredible engine, transmission and suspension.

    The main reason I chose a Mazda3 over the Civic is because the LX/EX didn't "do it" for me. My priorities and what I enjoy in an automobile vary from a lot of other folks. For instance, I was willing to sacrifice some fuel economy to get the exceptional handling of the Mazda3 with 17" wheels. To a lot of people (three times more from the sales figures), the Civic is obviously more appealing than the Mazda.

    The Si would be an awesome car to own, but I didn't have $20k+ to spend nor time to wait for one to be available. The Mazda only cost me $16k. I'm also not a fan of 2-door cars (not practical for me). The Si Sedan, however, will probably make me want to trade in my Mazda3. Until then, I'll just enjoy zoom zooming (albeit slower than in an Si). :blush:
  • mcapmcap Posts: 49
    It is funny how defensive we can get over our cars. I was myself probably only a few hours away from buying a Mazda3. The only reason I didn't was gas mileage and the fact that my last Civic was absolutely bullet proof and retained more value than you could believe. Couldn't bring myself to move away from Honda. The 3 is an awesome car though and great to drive. Both great cars for different reasons and the top of the class.
  • I said behind myself in a EX Coupe and it was a little tight but bearable. The Si will be the same. If the EX or Si Coupe were going to be your only car and you regularly have more than two people riding, then yes you should probably consider another car such as the Civic sedan or Mazda 3 sedan or wagon.

    The Civic Si is no my only car and I don't plan to use it for long trips where I need to carry luggage and people.

    6-speed smooth shifting,

    MidCow
  • gosteelerz said:

    "Bottom line is the Si is a couple of tenths quicker in a straight line than the 3, but gives up that advantage in handling and braking. As someone who obviously likes Hondas doesn't it sadden you to have to compare th SI coupe against the run-of-the mill Mazda. "

    Let's see Mazdas whole slogan is "Zoom-Zoom" The run of the mill Mazada as you call it has a bigger engine than the even the Si at 2.3L 160 hp and 150 ft-lbs of torque. The Normal 1.8 liter 140 hp Civics get much better mileage than the Mazda 3 and almost exactly the same as the 2.0 liter 197 HP 139 ftlb Civic Si.

    Ha! Ha! ON the couple of tenths of second quicker. Some of the early reports on the Si performance were ulttra conservative, in actuallity the Si will be around 6.5-6.7 seconds 0-60 mph. The Mazda 3 with a manual in in the low 8.0 seconds from Auto Consumer Guide.

    I consider 1.3-1.5 seconds better time for 0-60mph to be vert substantial as opposed to "a couple of tenths".

    All of the Mazda 3 engines are bigger and offer more horsepower and torque than the DX,LX,EX Civics

    1.8L Civic 140 Hp, 128 ft-lb
    2.0L Mazda 150 Hp, 135 ft-lb
    2.0L Civic 197 Hp, 139 ft-lb
    2.3L Mazda 160 Hp, 150 ft-lb

    Bigger engine more torque, more horsepower, less MPG.

    6-speed smooth shifting,

    MidCow
  • Ha! Ha! ON the couple of tenths of second quicker. Some of the early reports on the Si performance were ulttra conservative, in actuallity the Si will be around 6.5-6.7 seconds 0-60 mph. The Mazda 3 with a manual in in the low 8.0 seconds from Auto Consumer Guide.

    You have taken the very worst numbers I have ever heard of for the the 3 and used it against the best, yet to be witnessed times in a magzine. I have seen anywhere from 7.4 secs to 7.8 secs for the 3 and 7.2 to 7.8 for the the SI. In all fairness the 7.8 was to 100 km/h (62 mph). As for the power to displacement issue, you will need to feed the Si premium fuel to get that high horsepower. BTW, there is negligable difference between the 2.0L Mazda3 fuel econ and the Civic.

    There is more to to engine's performance than peak HP. The broadness of the powerband is more important. The reason the Si has 6 gears is beacuse you are asking 139 ft.lbs to move a 2900 pound car.
  • The Mazda 3 is a real sleeper. I think its a bargain and a much better choice than the Civic. Civics are everyplace and they have that image of a ghetto car with the fart mufflers slammed to the ground. I hope they don't do that to the Mazda 3. IMHO the Mazda 3 is an S40 in a little less expensive clothing. More refined, quieter than the Civic.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    It isn't more refined or queiter.
    It's faster because it has a bigger engine that uses much more more gas.
    140HP is a good amount of standard horsepower considering the optional engine used to be 127HP and even that was very adequate for commuting in a car that small.
    The Civic sedan is an economy commuter car and it is so silly that people are comparing and arguing about 0-60 times.
    When I test drive a car, I determine if it has enough power to get on an onramp quickly enough for my needs. I don't worry about how it compares in speed to other cars in a race.
    For the same $21K as the Mazda 3s, you could get a Neon SRT-4 if you are so concerned about track times and so little concerned about fuel economy or crash safety.
    I wonder why they didn't add a Neon SRT-4 to the comparison test?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,717
    Because the Neon is dead (, Jim).
  • Touche! Sadly, a local dealer has about 40 of them lined up on his back lot. You can get one for about $10k, though. =)
  • For the same $21K as the Mazda 3s, you could get a Neon SRT-4 if you are so concerned about track times and so little concerned about fuel economy or crash safety.

    Buying a car that gets 26/32 MPG and shares platform with a Volvo makes me not-concerned about fuel economy and safety?

    I know it's all relative, but come on. Some of you guys are trying to make the 3 look like a Cavalier with a Hemi. Is it SOOO wrong for economy car buyers to have a weee bit of fun? :cry:
  • Hey Gosteelerz you said:

    "You have taken the very worst numbers I have ever heard of for the the 3 and used it against the best, yet to be witnessed times in a magzine. I have seen anywhere from 7.4 secs to 7.8 secs for the 3 and 7.2 to 7.8 for the the SI. In all fairness the 7.8 was to 100 km/h (62 mph). As for the power to displacement issue, you will need to feed the Si premium fuel to get that high horsepower. BTW, there is negligable difference between the 2.0L Mazda3 fuel econ and the Civic."

    2.0 i Mazda = man (28/35) auto (26/34)
    1.8 Honda = man (30/38) auto (30/40)

    NOT NEGLIGIBLE! And in the real world Honda makes their EPA estimates and The Mazda 3i ZOOMs below!!!

    Please post you source of the faster Mazda 3 numbers. I have never seen any posts on the Mazda 3 faster than 8.0 seconds. I have found that Auto Consumer Reports to be pretty consistent on mpg, 0-60 and other measurements.

    There have only been a few reviews of the Si and most that have actually driven it are less than 7 seconds. Car and Driver hasn't really driven it and bases it on Honda's original high estimate of 7.3 seconds. Are you sure you aren't quoting the first conservative Honda SEMA predictions and/or the previous generation Si ?

    Gosteelerz also said: "There is more to to engine's performance than peak HP. The broadness of the powerband is more important. The reason the Si has 6 gears is beacuse you are asking 139 ft.lbs to move a 2900 pound car."

    The Car has an 8,000 rpm redline with a 8,500 rpm fuel cut-off. You have obviously never owned and long term driven a VTEC engine. I had a GSR previously , mildly modified and a except for pur straight-away it was actually faster than the M3 ( real one BMW) that I had at the time. The reason for the six gears has nothing to do with the Honda power-band which you obviuosly don't understand. By the way the first 5 gears are close-ratio and the 6th gear is a higher, highway cruising gear.

    Civic Si rules!

    MidCow
  • I test drove one in Houston in the middle of the summer. The A/C system was hopeless. Then my son started dating a girl who drove her Mazda 3 to Houston from NY. The A/C in her car is just as hopeless. From what I can tell googling around on the internet, this ia s well-known problem that Mazda refuses to fix for existing Mazda3 owners.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,717
    Since you like CR... when CR tested the Mazda3i ('04) and the Civic EX ('05 model), they achieved 30 mpg overall with the 3i and 29 mpg overall with the Civic, both equipped with automatics. (Note that 29 mpg is below the EPA average mpg for the Civic, while 30 mpg is above the EPA average mpg for the 3i.) Now, the EPA fuel economy for the '06 Civic automatic (40) is a bit higher than for the '05 model (38). But will that translate into a big increase over the 30 mpg posted by the 3i? I guess we'll have to wait for CR's test of the '06 Civic to find out.
  • Wrong Magazine! Here is a link to Auto Consumer Reports. It is a great research resource: http://auto.consumerguide.com/

    Also the 2006 Honda is a new generation with much better features and much better mileage. By the way is is MTCOTY.

    Cheers,

    MidCow

    P.S.- Since you own two Hyundais, you'll be glad to hear this. I actually saw a couple of new Hyundai V6 Sonatas yesterday and they were pretty impressive both in looks and acceleration. Hyundai is on the move!
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,717
    So just because it's not Auto Consumer Reports, and doesn't jive with your opinion, it doesn't count?

    The 2006 Civic doesn't get much better mileage than the 2005. Actually, the stick shift versions are almost exactly the same, and the automatic 2006 is 2 mpg (5 percent) better on the highway, according to the EPA. Even though the engine on the 2006 may be more efficient than on the 2005, it has a few hundred more pounds of car to pull along.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    These comments are from Autoweek concerning the Civic..I think they apply to this discussion.

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051226/FREE/51214002/1005/V- EHICLEREVIEWS
  • NOT NEGLIGIBLE! And in the real world Honda makes their EPA estimates and The Mazda 3i ZOOMs below!!!

    This is not entirely true. Please see a report by consumer's union that contradicts that.

    link title

    Upon further review the spread between the 2 cars is 0.6 secs on average based on reviews by major players. So I give you the nod on straight ahead perfomance but that is only half of the equation, there is still handling which goes to the 3 even without dedicated summer tires. The 3 is a fantastic handling car whether you are discussing numbers or subjective feel. Every publication has raved about it. Again we are comparing a useful 4 door sedan against the fabled "Si" coupe. I'm not trying to bash the Si, if Honda had put the 197 HP motor and beefed up suspension in the sedan it then would be a truly compelling car.

    I have a fairly good grasp of how Honda makes it's power but still stand behind my assertion that "fatness" of the powerband is just as important. Let's dig up that 6 cyl mustang again. It has a 4 litre motor that makes a whopping 210 HP. That is only 13 more than the Si yet it has to pull 400 more lbs with 1 less gear. You may dispute this, but from all tests I have seen the Mustang is the quicker car. Why? because it has gobs of torque from 1500 RPM's all the way to 5000 RPM's.

    BTW nice taste in cars, the GSR and M3. If I had all the money in the world I would still find myself a mint 98' M3.
  • I'm not trying to rude, but it's called Consumer Guide Automotive. Calling it Auto Consumer Reports would make it very easy to confuse with Consumer Reports magazine.

    Here are several published 0-60 figures for the Mazda3-

    Car and Driver 1/04- 7.4 seconds
    Motorweek Online- 7.7 seconds
    Intellichoice- 7.73 seconds
    Motor Trend 6/04- 7.8 seconds

    Slightly better than 8.0 seconds.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    You have taken the very worst numbers I have ever heard of for the the 3 and used it against the best, yet to be witnessed times in a magzine. I have seen anywhere from 7.4 secs to 7.8 secs for the 3 and 7.2 to 7.8 for the the SI. In all fairness the 7.8 was to 100 km/h (62 mph). As for the power to displacement issue, you will need to feed the Si premium fuel to get that high horsepower. BTW, there is negligable difference between the 2.0L Mazda3 fuel econ and the Civic.

    Motor Trend tested a Civic EX sedan and achieved 8.0 seconds to 60 miles per hour. Call me crazy, but a car with a race-tuned engine, six speed gearbox, and 60 more horsepower is going to be considerably faster (more than a second) to sixty than that EX sedan. I believe mid 6s are definitely possible in stock form.
  • Interesting report by Consumer Reports. Here are the results, for those who don't feel like flipping thru all those report pages.

    It seems that CR got better city fuel economy from the Mazda, better highway fuel economy from the Civic. They also did significantly better than EPA highway ratings on the Mazda.

    Consumer Report fuel economy testing-


    Civic EX 4AT- EPA ratings- 31/38
    CR overall - 29
    CR city - 21
    CR highway - 40
    CR 150 trip- 35 (150 mile trip average)

    Mazda3 i 4AT- EPA ratings- 26/34
    CR overall - 30
    CR city - 23
    CR highway - 38
    CR 150 trip- 32

    Also, just FYI, here are their numbers for the 5-speed manual Mazda3 i they tested. They didn't test a manual Civic, so there are no numbers to compare with.

    Mazda3 i 5MT- EPA ratings- 28/35
    CR overall - 33
    CR city - 24
    CR highway - 42
    CR 150 trip- 36

    I must admit, that the 3 s doesn't do quite as well in fuel economy. Those extra horses and torque do come at a price. I'd like to see some real world numbers on a manual Civic and manual 3 s.
  • Motor Trend tested a Civic EX sedan and achieved 8.0 seconds to 60 miles per hour. Call me crazy, but a car with a race-tuned engine, six speed gearbox, and 60 more horsepower is going to be considerably faster (more than a second) to sixty than that EX sedan. I believe mid 6s are definitely possible in stock form.

    Where did you find these numbers. To be honest, I have not been able to find a single test with numbers on a stick, regular, Civic. For such a high profile car it's been hard to get the numbers on it. I am starting to wonder if there is a conspiracy. Car and Driver has yet to test the bread and butter version of the Civic, what gives?
  • An EX 5-speed manual was tested in 1/06 issue of Motor Trend as part of their Car Of The Year testing.
  • I must admit, that the 3 s doesn't do quite as well in fuel economy. Those extra horses and torque do come at a price. I'd like to see some real world numbers on a manual Civic and manual 3 s.

    That works out about $100 a year for the average driver, a real deal breaker. If I was buying a furnace or a fridge then this would be a consideration.
  • Exactly, I don't think for someone who likes both cars that it would be a deal breaker. Certainly didn't sway me away from the 3 s.

    If fuel economy is the only concern a buyer has and it matters more than anything else, get a Corolla! They get 41mpg, but it's my understanding that a driver can die of boredom. :blush:
  • What about a Corolla with a stick?
    Even if the driver's bored he still needs to pay enough attention to shift.
  • z71billz71bill Posts: 2,000
    Go take a look at the Mazda3 MPG thread - there are some reports of MPG that are over 35 - with the 2.3L engine - but also posts that are close to 20 MPG. Low readings are almost always with the auto tranny.

    I spent most of the summer getting between 17 and 19 MPG with my Mazda3 S sedan. Most of my miles are city - but still 17 MPG is pretty poor - when I use my full size 4x4 Pickup with a 5.3L V8 - for the same miles - I get right at 15. (I admit I may drive the Mazda3 a little harder in the curves)

    Sure - "your MPG will vary" but it seems like your risk of getting a very low MPG car is MUCH higher if you take a chance on a Mazda3.

    I only drive the Mazda3 about 9,000 per year so its not that big of a deal to me - but if I was a commuter that put on 30K a year it would change my mind - $125 a month more for gas is 1/3 of a car payment.

    It really sucks when you only get 220 miles out of a tank of gas - Mazda should have put in a larger gas tank.
  • lmp180psulmp180psu Posts: 393
    I have seen the reports of high and low mileage also, but I may be an outcast when it comes to mileage. During the spring-fall, I averaged about 30 mpg (2.3 auto), and so far in the winter I am around 28 mpg. I drive on one-lane roads 35-55 mph, and have a few (maybe 7-8 lights) on my 20 mile each way work commute.

    If I was looking for a coupe, then an Si would certainly be on my list, but having to use premium fuel would make me think twice. The increased price of premium fuel vs regular for the 3 might offset the better mpg for the Si.
  • twa1twa1 Posts: 1
    Many people have brought up the fact that you can buy an SI and a years worth of gas for the price of the 3, so I won't. Bottom line, $2400 is a big price gap. And the Civic comes pretty loaded already. As for the argument that you can delete the sunroof on the 3... the Civic EX comes standard with a sunroof. If you want to delete it on the 3, then price compare it with the Civic LX. It's not $1000 bucks difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.