Honda Civic vs Mazda3

warner

Did you even read the article? I mean, did you? If you think they only saw the advantage at the track, you must have had your blinders on.

Yes, I did read the article. That's what led me to believe that many of the things they liked better about the Mazda were simply that - a matter of personal preference, NOT something that one could assign a real value to.

Here's some non-performance quotes:

From their summary:
"Even so, the Mazda still outshines the newly redesigned Civic when it comes to interior materials and styling. Plus, the Mazda's dash is easier to use than the Civic's two-tiered speedometer/tachometer displays as are its stereo and heater-A/C controls."

Would you say this is a matter of preference, or what EVERYONE would find about the car? Personally, I love the styling and (especially) the dash layout on the new Civic. It's one of the main reasons that I wanted to get it after only having my 2004 Civic for a year and a half.

Otherwise, the 3's interior is simply nicer than the Civic's. Leather seats with seat heaters are standard with the "S Grand Touring" trim level. The leather-wrapped steering wheel is relatively small in diameter and thick-rimmed which makes the 3 feel more like a sports car when you're beating WRXs through the slalom.

If you like leather seats, that's fine. I don't prefer them myself. From what others have said (in these very forums) about the leather used in the 3's seats it's cheap and plasticy feeling. Oh, and let me know when I can come and watch you beat the WRX through the slalom on your commute into work, okay?

The instrument panel is dominated by a center-mounted speedometer surrounded by a tachometer on the left and fuel and coolant temperature gauges on the right. It's a conventional design which is as functional as it is attractive.

This reviewer preferred the more conventional look, others prefer the two-tiered dash of the Civic. It's a matter of preference and certainly not something that makes one car "better" than the other.

The passionate choice

Notice their choice of words? Notice they didn't say the "practical" or "economical", or "smart" choice?

It's the little things that add up to give the 3 the victory. It does virtually nothing wrong and gets so much right. 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. Bottom line, the 2006 Mazda 3 wins because it offers a driving experience far beyond our expectations and, more importantly, beyond its price tag."

Here they clearly indicate that their choice was based on preferences that many people who actually BUY the cars may not share with them. And they also admit to a HEAVY bias on performance, which is the only truly objective advantage that the Mazda has.

The "Second Place" Section:
"Confused interior
Honda traditionally produces superb interiors, which is why we are puzzled by the jump backward in heating-A/C controls. The last-generation Civic's three-knob, three-button design for temperature, fan speed and vent location was as elegant, intuitive and as efficient as any system ever built. Yet, with the 2006 Civic, Honda left simplicity in favor of more buttons (nine of them to be exact — and two knobs). It's not a deal breaker, but it's certainly not as easy to use as the old design.

Here again we have some preference issues. Having owned both the previous version of Civic and now the 2006, I find the new heat & A/C controls on the new car much easier and quicker to - I don't have to mess with rotating knobs while driving; I simply reach out and push a button. To me, this is easier. Again, it's a matter of preference.

And one of their editors:
"Senior Editor Scott Oldham says:
Honda's designers made this an easy choice for me. The Civic's cab-forward profile, pug nose and gargantuan dashboard just ain't my thing. Although a tick tall and narrow, the Mazda's proportions are much more to my liking, and its interior is modern and upscale without feeling forced and contrived. Its leather-wrapped three-spoke steering wheel, for example, is so perfectly executed it should be the template for the device industry-wide.

Pure preference again, no? ("it just ain't his thing"? Nice slang journalism - I wonder where he was taught English)

Stack on the Mazda's stronger performance and the choice really gets easy. Although the softer-sprung Civic performs well for the class, the Mazda simply eats its lunch in any speed contest man can conceive. And that pace is managed without any sacrifice in comfort or utility, in fact, the more fun-to-drive Mazda is also available as a little wagon. The Civic is not.

Yeah, we know it performs better on the track. Can that say that again in another way, or did they use them all up?

But the clincher for me is the Civic's silly gauge placement, which puts only the tachometer where it should be; viewed through the steering wheel. Honda stuck the rest of the dials at the base of the windshield. Bad idea, people. Very bad. Ranks right up there with wicker furniture and the XFL.

More preference......I suppose this reviewer never heard of heads up display?

Work another shift and buy the 3. I would. "

You'll have to in order to pay for the gas and lost resale.

So they said it won in objectiove tests and subjective tests

Really? Which objective tests did it win in again? Performance, right? Like I said.....

Initial cost is one portion of the equation, right? What about total cost of ownership?

They don't have the TCO for the Civic yet, so we can't do a comparison yet. I think you'll be surprised at the retained value of the Mazda. It is holding up well

Let's just use the history of the Civic, okay? Or do you have some reason to believe that this one will be different for some reason?

The 3 still gets good MPG, just not as good as the Civic. 3: Good economy, very good performance. Very good economy, good performance. It's all relative. Not black and white, like you seem to believe. It's not the ONLY criteria

It's the only criteria in which the Mazda beats the Civic.

From what I take from your posts, you concentrate on getting into accidents and surviving them, I'll concentrate on not getting into them in the first place

Really, which one of my posts led you to believe that? The one where I was hit by a car while sitting on my motorcycle? (which by the way would VASTLY out handle, out brake, and out accelerate your monster Mazda 3). Is that the one that you were referring to, perhaps? I'll refrain from the personal attacks....the Civic has enough advantages over the Madza that I don't have to resort to that type of conversation.

Warner

dhanley

"Actually, what I've read suggests that heavier vehicles do tend to be safer when involved in a collision with another vehicle, but do WORSE when involved in accidents with immovable objects such as trees, cement barriers, etc "

Actually, what you're thinking of is SUV vs car collisions, or more generally unit-body vs ladder-on-frame.

Weight alone won't help you, but the volvo supposedly does have a lot of high-tensile steel in the cabin cell.

mrblonde49

Isn't subjective preference part of any car review? I stated earlier - in THEIR review, the people that run the site that you frequent. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but Edmunds said it's a clear winner and they car they would personally buy. Nothing you say can change that.

Still waiting to hear why you didn't get the Si, since you think it's such a good fit for comparison?

midnightcowboy

Hey Warner,

Congrats on your new Civic. I would like to ask Mr Blondie49 how he really feels about the Mazda 3? I sense it is just a very bad case of buyers remorse and he wished he waited for the Honda Civic and is trying to justify his Mazda 3 purchase.

Soon to be cruis'n in a Civic Si,

MidCow

warner

Isn't subjective preference part of any car review? I stated earlier - in THEIR review, the people that run the site that you frequent. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but Edmunds said it's a clear winner and they car they would personally buy. Nothing you say can change that.

Still waiting to hear why you didn't get the Si, since you think it's such a good fit for comparison?

For the same reason that I DID buy the EX. I don't value performance above all else in an economy car. To me fuel economy and safety were at the top of my list. If I DID rank performance at the top of my list however (and had to stick to the same budget), I would certainly buy the Si before I bought a Mazda 3.

Warner

thegraduate

Isn't subjective preference part of any car review? I stated earlier - in THEIR review, the people that run the site that you frequent. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but Edmunds said it's a clear winner and they car they would personally buy. Nothing you say can change that.

Still waiting to hear why you didn't get the Si, since you think it's such a good fit for comparison?

Perhaps he values safety, resale, and economy skidpad numbers in his economy car? For people who drive like bats out of hell (90+ mph on the interstate for example), slalom on their way home, or love pinning their kids to the window on a 270 degree off ramp, the 3 is better than the Civic. For those of us that haul kids and live on a family budget, the Civic is by FAR the best IMO.

If the 3 is all great in performance, then what do its crash test scores say for it? A POOR rating? That doesen't sound like a fully completed car design to me.

BTW: I drive an Accord with a conventional dashboard (like the 3). I like it, but after test driving the Civic, the Accord's dash is suddenly subpar as far as "eyes off the road time" goes. The Civic's speedo/fuel/temp gauge is basically in the driver's line of sight, similar to how a "heads-up display would be. Very slick, IMO. This is MY OPINION, not fact.

EDITED PS: I just saw where he was replying same time I was.

mrblonde49

"Really, which one of my posts led you to believe that? The one where I was hit by a car while sitting on my motorcycle? (which by the way would VASTLY out handle, out brake, and out accelerate your monster Mazda 3). Is that the one that you were referring to, perhaps? I'll refrain from the personal attacks....the Civic has enough advantages over the Madza that I don't have to resort to that type of conversation. "

How was that a personal attack? How many times have you said "What car would you rather be driving if an xxx hit you?" While saying the "perfromance" numbers mean little. Numbers that include braking and handling. You are focusing on passive safety, are you not?

I could just as easily ask what car you would rather be driving when someone cuts in front of you and you have to either emergency brake or swerve to another lane

Active saftey, and passive safety. 2 parts to the equation

thegraduate

Trade in values:

2000 Mazda Protege ES AUTOMATIC in GOOD condition

$4,375

2000 Honda Civic EX Automatic in GOOD condition

$6,765

$2400 is a lot of money in the economy car game.

mrblonde49

I don't value performance above all else in an economy car. "

And neither do I. If Mz3 owners did, we'd all have SRT4's, wouldn't we?

mrblonde49

Trade in values:

2000 Mazda Protege ES AUTOMATIC in GOOD condition

$4,375

2000 Honda Civic EX Automatic in GOOD condition

$6,765

$2400 is a lot of money in the economy car game. "

You're not even comparing the same car. Mz3 has much better resale than Protege did. Stop the madness

thegraduate

With this post, I can reasonably ask you this question:

Which car would you rather be sitting in if T-Boned by a Tahoe? A car with a rating of "Good", or one of "Poor"? Remember, many crashes are not because of loss-of-control; none of my three have been, i have been rear-ended twice, and sideswiped by a van into a guardrail. All of these occurred in my 1996 Accord, which has a better safety record than the ten year newer Mazda 3 (Acceptable rating in 1996, 4 stars), with no side airbags available at that time.

ctalk

I would rather have a car that did good on crash test scores, than a car that handles better on a slalom.

I could just as easily ask what car you would rather be driving when someone cuts in front of you and you have to either emergency brake or swerve to another lane

I could easily ask what would you rather be driving if a car is heading straight at you. Better braking and handling may very well prevent the crash from happening, but what if it happens? What if you actually hit the car?

Better handling and braking will not save your life in that situation.

mpg60

I concur, I actually think Mazda is training the 3 to be more than just an economy car, but at the moment based upon industry guidelines it is classified as such but happens to be more than a typical economy car. The mazda 3 proves that one can have so much more in the wide variance/definition of economy than just great gas mileage.

mrblonde49

Which car would you rather be sitting in if T-Boned by a Tahoe? A car with a rating of "Good", or one of "Poor"? Remember, many crashes are not because of loss-of-control; none of my three have been, i have been rear-ended twice, and sideswiped by a van into a guardrail. All of these occurred in my 1996 Accord, which has a better safety record than the ten year newer Mazda 3 (Acceptable rating in 1996, 4 stars), with no side airbags available at that time. "

My mazda has side airbags so the poor doesn't apply. It hasn't been tested with them yet, but I trust a car that took it's safety cues from Volvo. Period.

ctalk

My mazda has side airbags so the poor doesn't apply. It hasn't been tested with them yet, but I trust a car that took it's safety cues from Volvo. Period.

Well its better to know, than assume. I would rather know my car has a good rating, than think "It shares the same safety cues as Volvo."

BTW, having the same safety cues as Volvo does not mean its safe.

explorerx4

those crash tests are done in labratory conditions. they try to eleminate factors other than the actual collision.
take 'grads real world example. he got sideswiped then hit a guardrail.
small cars are at risk no matter what their 'star' rating.
i punted a toyota minivan(about 2 tons) with my ex-expedition. if it had been a small car, it probably would have been catastrophic for the other vehicle and occupants.
i do drive a focus on a regular basis, though.
sorry about my obtuse 2 little pigs post yesterday. at least midcow got it.

gib11

Mazda:
First: better suspension, drivability, acceleration,torque, and braking will help you avoid tragedy, while giving you a zoom zoom drive which, for me, is a preventive mesure for insanity.
Second: the MZ3 is still a very safe car. It's chassis is equipped with the same safety technology as the civic (e.g. platform deformation, multiple sensor for the variability of air-bags, detightning seat belt by ignition). Why it didn't get par with the civic is because of the head-rest design of the Mz3. So did the corolla!
The safety of a car is better measured by a lot more than passive safety measures (air bag, strenght of chassis), You need to look at the whole picture(does it have good braking power, is the suspension stable, can you step on the gas up-hill, or on a highway to ovoid danger coming at you? etc. And finally, even with the new civic 8th gen, I wouldn't want to get acquinted! with a Ford Explorer at 50 miles an hour :sick:
Just my .02 cents!

mcap

Consumer's just finished their review of the Honda Civic. It is now their top rated economy car including the Mazda 3. The breaking, acceleration, emergency avoidance and performance numbers were all comparable to their tests of the Mazda3 i - the car the EX should have been compared to. In some cases they were better.

I think both cars are great. But if you don't see any bias in the way Edmunds both ran and wrote their comparo, you are crazy. They overlook some glaring weaknesses in the 3 and highlight every tiny spec out of place in the Civic. I like the 3 just about as much as the civic - in some ways, more. But everyone who has every stepped into my car has been blown away by the interior. Even friends who have much more expensive cars. You may or may not prefer the 3's interior but to say it blows away the civic just isn't true. Look at the seats for example, I like the M3 seats much better and find them more comfortable. But to call them "more aggressive????" The Civic seats are MUCH more aggresively bolstered in back and on the side. That's actually why I don't like them.

Edmunds had it out for the Civic. Feel free to brag about your 3, you have every right to. Just don't point to their comparo as some objective exercise. It wasn't!

joemags

get a clue..the mazda 3 and the protege' of old are two entirely different cars....the civic of 2000 kicked the tail off of the protege'....now it's the mazda's turn to return the kicking with the "3"....get used to it.....and all you corolla people get used to the same....as far as resale is concerned compare the civic and the 3 now....the 3 will continue to hammer the civic....get used to it!!!

explorerx4

i hope you are replying to a post that i replied to.
other than that, you are way out of line.
new civic is ok, but not an inspiration.

mcap

Who called the civic an inspiration? They are both economy cars. Not me. Perhaps Motor Trend, but not me. Again, these are cars with different character. The M3 is sportier and Civic more practical and safer.

Again, I love the 3 but let's not get carried away. Both cars have to cut corners somewhere. The 3? No maintenance free battery? Are you kidding? No footplate for the driver? The orange superglow lighting in the dash? The strip of meaningless lights in the center console? The drivers side right legroom? A rear blind spot that is something closer to a black hole? The air conditioning? I rented one and it took two full tries to start - each time I stepped in. The M3 has not had the highest rating for reliability for either 04 or 05 by consumers. Civic did. The side crash rating for the car without side airbags (the car most of you 3 owners are actually driving - not the one you could buy) was poor and the rear ratings - marginal. Don't care, that's fine. I work in rehab. A few hundred pounds of metal and engineering can mean the difference between your life being permanently changed and walking away with a bruise.

As for resale, it has been good but the car has been out 2 years. Quote the books all you want. How much will a dealer actually pay you for your used 3? Who is actually quoting dealer trade in offers. My Civic lost 25% over 2 years - confirmed. That's the standard. And what happens when Hertz turns over it's fleet of M3's and they hit the market?

I am not sure how my post was out of line. I try to be even. But we are all driving economy cars. The 3i is a better comparison. And, you should all recall that the coupes suspension and handling are better in the civic. The sedan was meant to be more tame. When the Sedan Si comes out, I am sure you will have some reason why it shouldn't be compared to the 3s though.

mcam

jaxs1

It was previous generation Mazda, just like the other person compared the resale value the current (2004) Mazda3 to the previous generation (2004) Civic and said that proves the resale value of the Mazda3 will be just as good as the new Civic.
Same type of example.

explorerx4

you posted this: " Feel free to brag about your 3, you have every right to."
i do not have a '3. never said i did. that is why i questioned your post.

allfiredup

That's interesting. Do you know what the actual test involves?

Consumer Reports' emergency avoidance maneuvers are designed to simulate real-world situations in which a driver needs to suddenly steer around an obstacle in the road. Consumer Reports auto-test engineers run two types of avoidance maneuvers: "long" and "short" course tests. In both, a vehicle is driven at progressively faster speeds so that test engineers can assess its handling characteristics under emergency-avoidance conditions. The tests are not designed to elicit a rollover, but CU considers vehicles that tip up severely in its tests to be exhibiting dangerous behavior.

The speed at which a test vehicle completes the short course is not as important as what happens when it exceeds its handling limits. Typically, the vehicle will slide or skid sideways, knocking over cones that define the course. In most circumstances, this is a more controllable situation for an SUV driver than a tip-up or rollover.

Also, do you know if it will be available to non-subscribers to their mag?

If they gave away test information for free, that would negate the need for anyone to subscribe to their magazine or website. They'd go bankrupt and no longer be able to provide the important information that they do to car buyers.

Interstingly, USA Today reported recently that over 40% of new car buyers use Consumer Reports and as high as 60% in some segments, like minivans, use it.

mcap

I truly wrote that without reference to any particular post. It was kind of a general statement. Sorry, forgot the post always refers to another one. My apologies.

mcap

The speed for the 3i and the civic were about the same (can't remember which was higher but it was marginal). Although the handling may not be as good in the civic, it may fare well on this test because it is lower and is very wide for a car in this segment.

allfiredup

You'll have to in order to pay for the gas and lost resale.

I've said this several times about the Mazda3 and I'll repeat it- You have absolutely NO proof that it will depreciate faster than the Civic!!! As a matter of fact, the only potential indicators, comparing a first year ('04) Mazda3 with the same year Civic, the Mazda retains 82% of MSRP and the Civic 83%. Even at a $20k MSRP, that's an additional loss of $200 on the Mazda3. Big deal!

You can whine and complain all you want that the new Civic will retain its value better than the old one. PROVE IT!

I have proof from industry standards such as Kelly Blue Book, Edmunds and NADA pricing guides to support my statement!

jaxs1

Old, replaced models lose more value than current models.
The 2000 Mazda vs 2000 Civic comparison shows that also.

allfiredup

The breaking, acceleration, emergency avoidance and performance numbers were all comparable to their tests of the Mazda3 i - the car the EX should have been compared to

Why do you feel the EX and the "i" should have been compared? I think it was fair to compare the EX and "s" because they're both the top sedan trim level of their respective models. What didn't make sense was why they used the Grand Touring model of the 3. Even as a 3 owner, I think it makes the test look a little unfair because the 3 had a lot of things the Civic didn't. There would be less room for discussion or dispute about the models used had they used the s Touring vs. the EX which would have made the car close to identical in equipment levels.

spinzero

I can't understand how you justify the statement that they should have compared the EX and the "i". You do understand that the EX and the "s" are the top trim levels of their respective models? They ARE similar in price when similarly equipped.

I think I've said the same thing about three times so far on this thread alone. Doesn't matter. People come here to blindly defend their brand loyalty without doing even a basic price check.

Just because Edmunds picked a loaded 3S with HID and leather, now all of a sudden the 3 is overpriced and the Civic is not. And we are talking about an economy car that gets you steel wheels and rear drum breaks after you pay well over $17K. Yeah, right.

spinzero

I've been following two threads lately, involving cars that I recently test drove. Here, the Civic vs. the 3, and the Civic vs. the Jetta. For what it's worth, I've been trying to defend the Civic on the other thread, as I felt that the Jetta was two much brand image and not enough substance. And for the same reason, I defend the 3 here.

Interesting thing (at least to me) is that on both threads, there has been overwhelming amount of complaints about how the comparison is "unfair", even though the comparisons are typical ones done by major auto magazines.

Predictably, the complainers are the Jetta supporters on the other thread, and the Civic supporters here. It seems to me like this is a sign that the underdog is in fact winning the battle.

And as for those that are trying to portray the 3 as some sort of death trap. The safest Sedan $18K can buy at this point would be a Hyundai Sonata. Almost always, midsizes are much safer than compacts. Added to that the new Sonata's perfect NHTSA crash test rating, standard 6 airbags, and most importantly, standard electronic stability control that is projected to reduce fatal accidents by as much as 30%, I say the Sonata is a safer car than the Civic. So why dind't you get one of those? I'm sure you had good reasons to get a marginally less safe car, just like the 3 owners had.

jaxs1

I don't think the Sonata has been tested by the Insurance Institute's more severe tests, plus it is not an economy car with high gas mileage and high resale value.
It doesn't belong in the comparison.

The Civic gives you top safety, fuel economy and resale value in one package.
It is the smartest and most practical choice.

hangaralf1

it shares a platform and an engine with a Ford.

mrblonde49

The breaking, acceleration, emergency avoidance and performance numbers were all comparable to their tests of the Mazda3 i - the car the EX should have been compared to."

Why should it have been compared to the i?

mrblonde49

The Civic gives you top safety, fuel economy and resale value in one package.
It is the smartest and most practical choice. "

Yes, it's a great "appliance" car

The 3 is a drivers cars that doesn't compromise very much on ride quality, safety or mileage

spinzero

it shares a platform and an engine with a Ford.

Well, and that's supposed to be bad? Do you have any idea how well European Ford (based in Germany) is doing in Europe? How successful the european Focus has been? You can also say that it shares platform with the Volvo S40. Now how is THAT bad?

And as far as the Sonata is concerned, I am not saying that it should be included in the comparison, and I am not going to bring it up again. I was just pointing out the fact that there are (possibly) safer cars than the Civic for the same money, and yet many still chose the Civic for various (good) reasons. Much like why I chose the 3.

qddave

Ok I just have to step in. These last 100 or so posts have been great reading. Isn't it great to argue with people you don't know from a hole in the ground and call their baby ugly. Seriously though, I have to get my two cents in. Yes the 3 has some glaring design/reliability issues. One poster way back asked why Edmunds did not mention some of these issues in their review....and what....get sued for slander? And no, we can't argue that the 2006 Civic will be perfectly reliable based on past family lineage, because that's what it is, family lineage. The car's are not related. This is a totally new vehicle, completely re-designed. Besides, back in 2003, no Honda backer would dare let a Zoom-Zoomer claim that the upcoming 3 should be reliable because the Protege was.

On to my 2 cents....

I'll agree that the Grand Touring 3 is not really a fair comparo to the EX, but no one stopped Honda from not offering the same appointments in the top line EX.

I'll also agree that the comparo was blantantly biased towards the 3, and laden with subjective criticisms against the Civic. But after driving both the EX Sedan and Coupe, I was also turned off by things that I thought Honda knew they had perfected and would never change. I drive a 99 Civic Sedan, 5MT. I'll comment on the HVAC controls first. They had it perfected. 3 dials, 3 buttons, right where the driver wants them (me anyways), and oh so simple to operate. I totally agree with Edmunds, the new setup is a step back.

The shifter in the 99 was not great, I installed a Neuspeed short shifter, a big improvement. But driving the 2006 was heart wrenching. Of course, the shifter is one of the first things the driver touches, and in an MT car, usually the most important. Maybe it was a one car anomoly, but this shifter was pure junk. It actually felt like a toy, both mechanically and ergonomically. Cheap, notchy feeling shift efforts with a Star Trek look just didn't cut it for me from a company that should know better.

As for the interior, my initial impressions were, "This is not an economy car". The appointments are very upscale and light years ahead of my 99. I actually got scared when I sat in the Civic for the first time, thinking that this space age interior may have just put my future 3 purchase in jeopardy. But, I test drove the Civic right to the Mazda dealer and put my mind at ease. I see the Civic interior as more upscale, and that to me threw me off. It doesn't quite complete the package. The 3's interior fits the theme of the vehicle. It's a driver's interior for a driver's car. The shifter is right where it needs to be, close to your right thigh, not lodged in the front of the console. The "black everywhere" interior, sometimes seen as dark and monotonous, actually makes sense because it implies a sporting nature. And I'll second the Edmunds writers on the design of the 3's steering wheel. Perfect form and the redundant audio and cruise controls are a much better design than the Civic.

Is the Civic for me? NO. Does my wife want to replace her Pro with one? YES. (She is actually on the fence between a Civic and a 5) Am I going to divorce her for it? NO. I'll just beat her to the grocery store everyt ime. Except those when I'm stopping for gas.

There you have it. And let me add my disclaimer, this is only my opinion. Remember, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one.

allfiredup

Great post and it sounds like you and I have a bit in common. I've owned and dearly loved Hondas in the past, but the current Civic just wasn't for me. I test drove both manual and automatic models and carefully thought about it before I made my decision. I bought a Mazda3 5-door instead. It doesn't mean I think the Civic is anything but a great car, just not the great car for me. When they bring out the Si Sedan, I may have to rethink my position. Perhaps I could get used to that dash with a nice black interior? Or maybe the Mazdaspeed3 will be out by then, too? That'd be a fun decision to make!

The sore spot with me in discussions like this is when people make false claims to support their biases or loyalties. It's okay to say things like the Civic has better fuel economy and superior side impact test ratings or that the 3 handles better and has more power, those are statements backed up by facts from vehicle testing. Even saying things you do or don't like about one car or the other are fair. What irritates me (and several others I've spoken with on here) is making false or unproven claims about resale value, reliability and any number of other things.

I think you said it best- we all have our own opinions! If you have a Civic, you have a great car. If you have a Mazda3, you have a great car. I think most of us can agree we're here to discuss and enjoy ourselves and resorting to elementary school snubs and smart*ss remarks really doesn't make anyone else respect your opinion, quite the opposite.

BTW, gddave- first paragraph was directed to you, the others are to everyone.

pat

please be careful - masked profanity is just as off limits as if you used the full word...

gosteelerz

it shares a platform and an engine with a Ford.

I would urge people to stay away from the Saturn Vue with that Honda tranny and all.

A juvenile rebuttal to a juvenile comment or is it just plain snobbery.

thegraduate

I am referring to Mazda as a whole. The "madness" is that the 2 generations old Civic (2000) has $2,390 better resale than the one generation old Mazda (2000). THAT'S madness. Keep in mind, the Civic resale I alluded to was the last model year for that generation, and had been out since late 1995. I'd call it more than fair.

audia8q

I just read apx 30 posts and have come to a simple conclusion....Mazda folks like their cars better than boring Honda's and Honda folks like their cars better than fun to drive Mazda's...and nobody is going to change anyone's mind.

mrblonde49

"I am referring to Mazda as a whole. The "madness" is that the 2 generations old Civic (2000) has $2,390 better resale than the one generation old Mazda (2000). THAT'S madness. Keep in mind, the Civic resale I alluded to was the last model year for that generation, and had been out since late 1995. I'd call it more than fair. "

The 3 is showing to retain much more value than the protege - that's the part you don't seem to get. Compare an 04 civic to an 04 3. Civic resale won't get much better w/ new generation - how can it?

Here's a comparison, trying to matchup options between both cars. Same mileage, color, and condition Not much difference, is there?

2004 Mazda MAZDA3 s 4dr Sedan (2.3L 4cyl 5M)
Trade-In Private Party Dealer Retail
National Base Price $11,894 $13,037 $14,941
Optional Equipment $793 $861 $1,082
Front Side Airbags $93 $101 $127
4-Wheel ABS $187 $203 $255
Front and Rear Head Airbags $93 $101 $127
4-Speed Automatic Transmission $420 $456 $573
Color Adjustment
Gray $24 $27 $30
Regional Adjustment
for Zip Code 07885 $-27 $-30 $-34
Mileage Adjustment
35,000 miles $-622 $-622 $-622
Condition Adjustment
Clean $0 $0 $0
Total $12,062 $13,273 $15,397

Certified Used Vehicle $16,397

2004 Honda Civic EX 4dr Sedan (1.7L 4cyl 5M)
Trade-In Private Party Dealer Retail
National Base Price $12,656 $13,741 $15,551
Optional Equipment $620 $659 $806
Front Side Airbags $148 $157 $192
4-Speed Automatic Transmission $472 $502 $614
Color Adjustment
Gray $26 $28 $32
Regional Adjustment
for Zip Code 07885 $-29 $-32 $-36
Mileage Adjustment
35,000 miles $-622 $-622 $-622
Condition Adjustment
Clean $0 $0 $0
Total $12,651 $13,774 $15,731

Certified Used Vehicle $16,758

midnightcowboy

You lnow Mr Blondie49 has made some excellent points about the Mazda 3. I even went back and reread reviews on the Mazda 3. There is an excellent one in Auto Consumer Guide.

I think both the Mazda 3 and the Civic Si are great cars for what I am looking for. The regular Civic is a little slow for me; I had a 1980 1500 GL Civic and at the time I really liked getting 30 mpg on the highway. In Houston, the driving level and pace is much, much faster than where I used to live. That and the fact that I don't no how to drive automatics, blew the Prius for me.

However, Maybe it is because I am older, but I really don't like the red gauges at night. I had a 98 BMW M3 and about the only thing I didn't like was the red/orange night gauge display. I had a 95 Integra GSR and it was very clear black on white. I liked the new RSX-X except for the red-orange display or I probably would have one.

Eveen thopught the Si has a redish background, the Si is clear digital and easy for me to se as well as the tachometer. I also have a 2005 Accord which has very clear black on white displays.

More than anything else, the red gauges probably blew the Mazda 3 wagon choice.

Again, I think both are great cars and you really can't go wrong with either.

cruis'n in 6th,

MidCow

P.S.- I have a brother-in-law that has a Mazda^ 4 cyl automatic and only gets 23-24 on the highway. I have a 6 cyl Accord 6-speed and get 29 mpg on the highway. That is my only true reference point about mazda milage claims so I could be wrong about the mileage of the 3 (2.3L) and 3i (2.0L) engines.

P.S.S - Whatever car you get watchout for the Priuses. Therer are more and more of them out there and they go slow. So be careful and don't run over them.

P.S.S. - Get Mazda to make a black on white gauge option and I will reconsider. The MX5 is a great value convertable

mrblonde49

Gauge colors are clearly subjective, but I like the looks of the red at nite - especially with the small blue touches for some contrast.

midnightcowboy

Actually maybe I should have been clearer. I had 20-20 vision all my life but now need reading glasses to see clearly close-up. It is harder for me to focus and see clearly on red-ish orange smaller displays.

Again, thanks for your knowledge and input about the Mazda 3.

MidCow.

mrblonde49

No problem.

I didn't come here to bash the civic. Both cars are great cars that cater to slightly different crowds, with some intersection. I'm sure 95% of their respective owners are very happy with their choices, and that's a good thing in car ownership these days

z71bill

Red gauges or checkered pattern seats (like on the Mazda3) become invisible after a few weeks of ownership.

But things like weak brakes - limited engine power - sloppy ride and poor handling last forever!

mazdasalesman

It's an Mazda 3

mvs1

Hello all, I was debating purchasing both of these vehicles. I was looking for a new commuter car and had basically open requirements, not bound to any brand even though I own and have owned several Hondas. Both the better half and I drove the Mazda3 and Civic a few times.

I was flexible in regard to features with the exception of navigation, newly offered in the Civic EX, and option I wanted to have. This also required I step up to the Mazda3 grand touring model. In my particular comparison the Mazda did come out priced a few thousand higher. Granted the Mazda also has some added options the Civic does not such as; xenons, heated seats, etc.

Both of these are really great vehicles in their respective class, I'm not adding anything new people do not already know. I honestly think they are so different and even though are classified in the same class cater to a different crowd.

For me...and the wife a few things stood out in favor of the Civic. The Civic had more usable interior room both passenger and usable compartment space. A more user friendly dash layout or better put easier on the eyes, granted the Civic's layout is not the norm with the speedo higher. The Mazdas gauge color (orange) seemed to wash everything out. The Civic has voice activated Navi/audio controls, the Mazdas does not. The seats in the Civic were and still are very comfortable, the Mazdas were uncomfortable even on short drives. The Civic is quieter in terms of road noise heard in the cabin. While subjective I personally like the styling of the Civic better, for me it takes some queues from Acura.

In favor of the Mazda were leather seating surfaces, not offered on the Civic. The car handles better, although the higher level of road noise does not add to the driving experience IMHO. The heated seats while very nice in my Audi, heated only a portion of the seat bottom on the Mazda, I test drove another Mazda with heated seats to verify this. Also, the heated seats are only on/off, not variable.

Some have argued in favor of the stereos, to me they both sounded about the same.

Also, anecdotal, two people I know have Mazda3s both have owners complained about squeaky brakes and underpowered AC units.

I do believe Mazda and Honda differ in terms of production philosophy. In mazdas case, they simply put out TSBs for which their dealer network seems unaware of. I don't know to what lengths if any Mazda goes through to correct their production problems, this may be influenced by Ford, but who knows. In my case, delivery of the Civic was delayed. I was told they briefly stopped production to correct an issue with the acceleration pedal. To me this displays Hondas commitment to the customer, or a least a commitment to not face a lawsuit, the two are not mutually exclusive. Hondas reputation for quality is earned not given, in Mazdas case as many car manufacturers they've learned a company makes money in spite of itself for only so long.

In any event, the Civic became the right choice for me at this time.