Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mazda3 2.3 vs. '07 VW Rabbit

2456713

Comments

  • steven39steven39 Posts: 636
    i went to my local
    vw-mazda dealership a few days ago to test drive both the 07 mazda 3 and a 07 vw rabbit.this dealership sells both brands.anyway,i test drove the mazda 3 first and while it handled pretty well it rode pretty rough and there was lots of road noise.you feel every bump with the mazda 3.next was the rabbit 4 door with auto,and what a difference the rabbit test drive was.the rabbit felt much more solid on the road,had a more comfortable ride with great handleing,and was more quiet inside than the mazda 3.a few key selling points that the rabbit has over the mazda 3 is,better ride,quieter interier,better stereo,and better bumper to bumper warranty coverage.4/50,000 compared with 3/36,000 with the mazda 3.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    better bumper to bumper warranty coverage.4/50,000 compared with 3/36,000 with the mazda 3.

    I hope you bought an extended warranty with that. After 50K, VW's have been known to be an electrical nightmare after 50K.

    If you leased it, you should be OK.

    I have driven the new Rabbit as well. It is a nice driving car, with a competitive price. I just don't trust German reliability.
  • qddaveqddave Posts: 164
    be sure to check the tire pressures in the 3. when I bought mine, the pressure was at 35 all around. I could feel every little crack in the road. I dropped to 32 front 30 rear and all is well. what a difference a few psi make.

    Dave
  • Knowing that I was going to buy one or the other, I test drove both the Mazda 3 and the VW Rabbit. I drove the 3 in both the sedan and the hatch, and I drove the rabbit in the 2 door. While the Mazda was zippier feeling and quicker around corners, the VW had a smoother quieter ride. Interiors impressed me similarly and price was close enough so I had to decide based on use. I am a product rep and spend a lot of time on the highway, as well as on icy roads. The VW had a nicer feel for long trips and the ASR does a great job at keeping the wheels from spinning on the slick spots.
    I've heard all the issues about VW reliability, however we've had several VWs in the family that all lasted far longer than they should have. As far as Mazda goes, we've had three. One made it to 200,000 with barely more then frequent oil changes. One was on its third tranny when it was dumped and the other was on its second. Both were under 100,000 miles. Everyone can make a lemon, and most everyone can build a great car. I just picked what worked best for me.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    ninjamanReliability probably goes to the Mazda3, but I don't think is as scary to own a vw as people say. Anyone can have a horror story with a car.

    06 Golf had higher quality rating (fewer problems per vehicle)than Mazda 3 as rated by JD Power. It is expected that the Rabbit will have better quality than the Golf based on actual quality improvements seen in Europe when Golf IV model switched to Golf V model (Golf V = Rabbit).

    Bottom line, reliability goes to VW Rabbit compared to Mazda 3.
  • funpgfunpg Posts: 3
    Maybe. It sounds like a gamble until the car's been around for a few years. :surprise:
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    06 Golf had higher quality rating (fewer problems per vehicle)than Mazda 3 as rated by JD Power. It is expected that the Rabbit will have better quality than the Golf based on actual quality improvements seen in Europe when Golf IV model switched to Golf V model (Golf V = Rabbit).

    You are forgetting that JD Powers rates vehicles based on "the first 90 day's of ownership". If you buy a new vehicle every 90 days, then the VW is for you. If you plan on owning the car longer then that, perhaps 5yrs or more, like the majority of vehicle owners, then the Mazda3 rates out better.

    CR places VW next to last in reliability, only Mercedes-Benz rates lower, and Mazda is near the top.

    Bottom line, reliability goes to VW Rabbit compared to Mazda 3.

    I would reverse that conclusion.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    90 days, or over 5 years would, for me anyway, be at either end of the spectrum. What would matter to me would be how either would fare between 90 days and 5 years, since I normally do not keep a car for longer than 4 years (or in excess of 60K miles), give or take a few months. So, if someone says most VW would fall apart after 5 years or at 100K miles, that wouldn't faze me much.
  • dridedride Posts: 139
    My VW started falling apart at 50,000 miles. My advice would be to get rid of one before hitting the 40k mark. At first it was a lot of little things: automatic window switches cracked and broke ($250.00), headlight switch shorted out ($299.00),interior door handles cracked ($45.00), headlights burnt out ($140.00 at dealer of course they demand you replace both), fog light replacement (they cracked and broke) ($350.00), and the gas cap latch door line snapped ($250.00)... Then there was the more serious items: (I'm done listing repair costs, it's just making me angry again) Airbag sensor went bad, side airbag sensor needed replacing, water pump had to be replaced, o2 sensors failed and were replaced, which led to the cat converter needing replacement (Graciously ((sarcasm)) VW agreed to cover that under the emissions warranty so thankfully that saved me $1,400.00)... I seriously laughed out loud when I read that someone is actually crazy enough to think VW could be anywhere near the TOP of a reliability list. I have had some problems with my Mazda, but everything has been covered under warranty, and my stress level has been brought way down no longer owning the VW. I will go out of my way to persuade friends, co-workers, and family not to buy VW. Mazda -vs- VW is a no-brainer (since I have owned both brands I feel justified in my opinion), I can not believe there is even a thread on this issue.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I have had some problems with my Mazda, but everything has been covered under warranty, and my stress level has been brought way down no longer owning the VW.

    There are no problem free brands out there. Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus owners also go through problems from time to time. Mazda's are not perfect, and VW's are not either, but, one is better off in the long run with a Mazda.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    That may be true but there are plenty of mazda owners with horror stories. (talk to anyone with a 626 and ask them if they like automatic transmissions.) I have not heard many new jetta owners with any real problems with their vehicle after quite a few miles so hopefully this trend will continue with the rabbit.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    There is a reason I'm starting to prefer Edmunds over C/D.
    You may witness this "full of content" comparo involving Rabbit, Mazda 3, et al. titled "Six Sedans" on the cover of the print version as well as in the text. http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11873/2007-toyota-corolla-le-vs-2006-hon- - da-civic-lx-vs-2007-hyundai-elantra-se-vs-2007-mazda-3s-touring-vs-2007-volkswag- - en-rabbit-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-20s.html

    I always draw my own conclusions from the tests, but this one is a pure nonsense. You can't call Rabbit a sedan and then give it more points than Mazda3 because you can put more luggage in the former. :mad: Not to mention "Got to have it factor"!
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,737
    There's also the little problem of both the Mazda3s Touring and the Rabbit 5-door listing for over C/D's self-imposed price limit of $18k (especially true for the Mazda3s Touring; the Rabbit can be had for under $18k but might not have tested out as well). But I guess that quibble is for another discussion. ;)

    Also giving points for something as subjective and personal as styling is pretty lame IMO.
  • steven39steven39 Posts: 636
    i actually test drove 3 of the cars in the comparison test before purchasing the rabbit.i test drove the elantra,mazda 3,and the sentra.it came down to between the mazda 3 and the rabbit.i felt that while the mazda 3 handled well it had a rougher ride than the rabbit and was much noiser as well.i think that the rabbit has a very good balance of ride comfort to handleing.also,the rabbit just felt much more solid on the road.and vw's 4/50 warranty was iceing on the cake for me so i went with the rabbit.have almost 1,000 miles on it and so far so good with the exceptions of some stereo issues that i am dealing with.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    Well, i'm sure that if the mazda had won in the 'gotta have it factor' many mazda loyalists would not have been complaining much. Even though styling is subjective, i don't see the wrong in letting that have a little influence on who wins a comparo. Have you not seen the edmunds civic vs mazda 3 article? Looks was very much so a factor there. That was over the top imo though. But back to the subject on hand its not like the vw one by a drastic amount of points on this article due to 'gotta have it factor' alone, it was a combination of things and even then it barely won.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    I tried to point out the fact C/D considers Rabbit a sedan (not once, but few times), makes no apologies for it (because there isn't one) and gives more points for luggage space. Where's Mazda3 hatch has 2 cu.ft. more on Rabbit.
    I won't renew their C/D subscr. not because MZ3 lost, but because their comparos suck and there's very little substance in it while a lot of pictures instead.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,737
    Also, recall that the last time C/D did a comparo like this, back in 2002, they didn't include the Golf then. The Protege won that comparo.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    when did they call it a sedan? I read the article in a bookstore and then again just a few moments ago... also keep in mind that the mazda 3 hatch would have been even more expensive than the rabbit, and perhaps that would have been too big of a price increase for them to justify the added features.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,737
    You didn't look at the cover, right at the top, where it talked about the six $18,000 sedans they compared?
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    Well since i read the article about 2 weeks ago at borders, no i don't recall. It must have been smaller print, because i don't think i picked up the magazine to read that article, i just stumbled upon it. Its just that after reading the article i didn't think that the kept pushing the 'sedan' thing. If they said it once on the cover, ok fine but it was made to seem like c/d was saying over and over that it was a sedan comparo.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    also keep in mind that the mazda 3 hatch would have been even more expensive than the rabbit

    The Mazda3 5-door is the same price as the Mazda3 sedan when equipped with the same equipment.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    yes it would. Just checked it myself. Dunno why they didn't use it then, typicall cd. But then again if the only bodystyle that vw offers to compete with these cars, so be it.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    sorry i meant to say that if the only body style that vw offers in this segment is a hatch, so be it.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    In technical jargon, is it not true that a hatchback can be technically a sedan, since the technical criteria for a sedan classification is not so much body-style, but rear-seat passenger volume, or such similar measurement? Hence you can have a "2-door sedan", or "4-door sedan". Whether it has a trunk, or a hatch is just more permutations.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,737
    How about the Jetta? It is a sedan and its price starts well under $18k, which was the cutoff for C/D's comparo.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,737
    Whether or not a car is a hatchback has nothing to do with rear seat legroom. It has to do with whether the car has a hatch on the back, vs. a trunk (or boot).
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    The statement: "is it not true that a hatchback can be technically a sedan, since the technical criteria for a sedan classification is not so much body-style, but rear-seat passenger volume, or such similar measurement?" not only contradicts itself but also questions itself.
    :shades:
    Please, clarify. If you implied sedan could be a hatchback, then on a very broad scale it is true because it used to be called hatchback sedan (could be liftback sedan - but that's different), but usually people, especially professionals, make a distinction to point out the differences.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    "Whether or not a car is a hatchback has nothing to do with rear seat legroom"

    That's right. But that wasn't my point. My point was the technical classification for a sedan does not depend on the number of doors, or a trunk, or a hatch. It's a function of measured volume. (At least as far as I recall).
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    "...not only contradicts itself but also questions itself."

    Huh? :confuse: It's my turn to say, please clarify.

    "...but usually people, especially professionals, make a distinction to point out the differences."

    Please note that I'm not disagreeing that the distinction should be made as you stated, I'm just saying that a hatchback may, technically, be a sedan. Playing devil's advocate, if you will.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,737
    Would that make the Ford Five Hundred, which has huge interior volume, moreso than cars like the Mazda3s "hatchback", a hatchback too? Not in my view.
This discussion has been closed.