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

1356720

Comments

  • 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: 18,628
    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: 18,628
    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: 18,628
    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: 18,628
    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: 18,628
    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: 18,628
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.