Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla vs Mazda3

allfiredup · October 2005

Corolla redesign? Yeah, they just call it the Jetta now.

ezpilze · October 2005

As much as I would like to say I'm excited about the corolla remake, I can't. After dropping the celica Toyota really only left buyers with the choice of the Corolla XRS and Matrix XRS as their only "sport cars." Perhaps after they remake the Corolla the they're gonna dump the XRS' to aim more towards adult/mature buyers, while leaving younger buyers with the scion line ups. Thats too bad, I really would have liked the Corolla S if they had put the tC's 2.4 litre into it instead of the scion. I'm 19, and no matter how I look at scions... *shiver* darn it, if Toyota would have atleast put in a torque-er engine into the Corolla I'm sure many more people would buy it over other models (for me, the only thing the Mazda 3 had going for it was it's torque, while Corolla's MOST severe draw back was the lack of torque)

mdaffron · October 2005

I gotta ask ...

You're 19 and you're driving a 5-series BMW???

Why are you even looking at Scions and Corollas?

Meade

ezpilze · October 2005

Hahaha cuz gas prices are kicking my [non-permissible content removed]. And I'm not looking for Corollas or Scions, I'm more interested in the 06 si. *drool* As for why I got stuck with the 5 series, check profile.

thegraduate · October 2005

Ahh, gas. It makes life with my old (96) Accord that much easier, 33mpg on my trip this Friday!

Sure would be fun to have more than 130 horsepower though!

leftylouie · October 2005

Hard to beleive you're using the term "stuck with" when refering to a BMW 5 series. I have been driving BMW's for the last 20 years, and a 98 528i for the last 6. This is without a doubt the finest sports sedan prior to 2000 ever created. As far as gas mileage, city driving only you will have a tough time getting over 20 mpg, but once you're out on the road, getting 30 mpg while going 85 mile per hour is incredible for that size car. My 2006 Corolla S only gets 34 mpg when I drive between 70 and 80. Since money seems to be an issue, you should be kicking yourself for not getting the 3 series like your parents wanted you to. Although the new Corolla S does compare to the early 80's BMW 3 series in handling quality, the quality of parts and materials used pales in comparision. This is the case with the Mazda 3 and the Honda Si as well.
Right now your holding on to a car that is destined to be a classic. If you can't afford servicing for it, BMW's can handle lack of service better than any car out there, as I experienced with my 82 320i.

mdaffron · October 2005

... takes one in the back!

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh05731_2005-10-18_10- -34-10_t234269_newsml

Meade

thegraduate · October 2005

its still not bad considering how many corollas or on the road

autonomous · October 2005

Toyota said it would recall about 1.27 million vehicles in Japan in addition to another roughly 140,000 vehicles exported overseas, including about 70,000 cars in Australia, 19,000 cars in Singapore and 17,000 cars in Thailand.

It seems like this problem may not affect North American Corollas so the recall should have minimal impact on American sales. In any case, Toyota's stock went up!

roverton · October 2005

Bottom line: All 3 are quality cars. It's simply up to the buyer as to which one they like. Isn't it great to have 3 choices rather than 1.

tominsd · October 2005

I seriously compared the new Honda Civic EX sedan and the Mazda3 GT sedan. I had also considered and drove the Toyota Prius. I liked the Prius more than I expected but it still did not have the handling and sporting character I want in a car. I still think it is a cool car. I looked at the Corolla as well but it has a very boomy engine and an awkward driving position. I rented one a few years ago and it does not appear that Toyota has fixed these problems (for me).
The Honda Civic EX was a more serious consideration. In its favor, it has a great gas mileage (based on the sticker), a nice new design and great resale value. I was beginning to believe that this was going to be my next car until I drove it. It was very nice and handled well. But it did not match the Mazda3. The Mazda3 - in the GT version - has leather, xenon headllights, auto windshield wipers, a great Bose stereo (with the moonroof option), heated front seats, tire pressure monitoring and more goodies. All in a package that is not much more (out of the door) compared to a Honda Civic EX (since they are not discounting very much these yet). All of those goodies would not have convinced me to buy the car except it handles the best of anything in its class. And as I have now got about 200 miles on the car, I am even more impressed. It is remarkably refined for a car in this price range. (OK, it is not a BMW 3 series car - which I owned for the past 6 years - but it is impressive nonetheless.) Also in Mazda's favor is the 4 year warranty and free loaner cars and the Bose stereo is great! I still hope the Civic is a huge success for Honda (they need it!). I want to see 10 Civics on the road for every SUV out there (yeah....fat chance of that...!

)

earlthom · October 2005

My local dealer finally had some 06 Civics on the lot (they had been re-selling every one they got in until now), so I was able to take one out on a drive. Thought I'd share my thoughts (model was an LX Sedan - Automatic, comparing to a 3i GT)

Noise: Fairly quiet ride at highway speeds. Still a fairly good "Honda" acceleration noise (louder than the 3).

Automatic Transmission: Shifting was very imprecise. Clocked some very high RPM's on harder acceleration. At 55 mph, any acceleration, no matter how light, led to a downshift and huge jump in RPMs. Dealer said this will correct as the car "breaks in" (Truth in this, anyone?) This could be a deal-buster for me.

Instrument Panel: Odd - but I actually liked it. Reading my speed was very simple and not nearly as obtrusive as I thought it would be. All the critical information is up high and easy to read without taking my eyes off the road. For a manual, though, the RPM gauge is lower (if you spend time looking at that until you have the "feel" for the car.)

Ergonomics: Tilt/Telescope was a very nice addition. Radio controls in a good position for me (but not steering-wheel mounted like the 3, unless you get the EX.) Auto shift blocked some storage compartments a little - but not in the way of the center console. Seats were comfortable (typical Honda) with good leg support in front. Rear seat OK for me (5'-9" - 190 lbs) with good head clearance. Not enough leg room in back for a long trip for an adult - but then what compact can boast that?

I like the Honda's mileage and instrumentation better. Ergonomics is a push as are seating issues. Tranny and noise go to the 3i. Tough choice. Anyone else experienced the shifting issues in the new Civic (auto)? What can you tell me. It could be a deal-buster.

autonomous · October 2005

Interesting report.

How did you find the Civic's storage capacity and overall utility? For example, is the rear cargo area sufficient for your needs, does the rear seat fold 60/40 for long items in the cargo area, are there enough bins in the passenger area? How does this capacity and utility compare to the Mazda3 sedan / hatchback?

mdaffron · October 2005

Ergonomics: Tilt/Telescope was a very nice addition.

Just in case you weren't aware -- the 3 also has a tilt/telescope wheel. Also adjustable lumbar support for the driver's seat, and whiplash-protection headrests.

Meade

bfyerxa · October 2005

Interesting. I drove a Civic LX manual last night and a Mazda 3 GS (Canadian 2.0l) manual tonight. I found the Civic much smoother and quieter. The 3 has slightly more oomph (in line with the numbers), but I felt it let me know when I was revving it. The Civic felt silky smooth in comparison. The 3 has quicker, more taught handling and better brakes. But the Civic felt "better put together" to me (I know - a very subjective statement). The kicker for me is the standard safety features on the Civic across the board. To get the ABS and airbags on the 3 GS I would have to climb up the price ladder. I must be getting old (plus I've got 2 small kids), but right now I feel the Civic is the better vehicle for me because it is smoother, more quiet, the most comfortable for me, and has the best standard safety features.

Amazing the difference a year makes. IMO the 3 reigned supreme, but the new Civic sure moves up to the same level (if for different reasons).

autonomous · October 2005

The kicker for me is the standard safety features on the Civic across the board. To get the ABS and airbags on the 3 GS I would have to climb up the price ladder.

Could you elaborate on your price to features evalution of both vehicles? My recollection is that ABS+front airbags are standard in Canada on the Mazda3 Sport GS hatchback which sells for ca. C$20.3K MSRP before freight, taxes etc. It sounds like you were looking at the sedan; did you check out the hb?

bfyerxa · October 2005

Looking at the GS sedan (Canadian), to get ABS you need the $1,495 sport package. That puts it up to $21,285 at which point I might as well pop for the 2.3l GT (but then gas mileage becomes an issue). And looking at it more, I don't think side airbags are available (please correct me if I am wrong). With kids the side airbags are important to me.

I have not driven the 2.3l Mazda3 (sedan or hb), so I obviously cannot comment on those. However, I feel the 2.0l is "apples to apples" with the Civic and I found the Civic much smoother and quieter. I feel a loaded up GT (2.3l) is in a slightly different class - a premium small car with options for leather, etc. I am not in that market. I was somewhat surprised at how "unrefined" the 3 2.0l felt compared to the Civic - however you could make the argument it is simply more lively and active (which is true). Maybe my tester was somewhat "off"?

Like I said earlier - I must be getting old because I will probably go with the Civic because of the safety features and the fact that it feels more "comfortable". Ugh! Pains me that these are now my car buying criteria!

herrkaleu · October 2005

I own a 5 door Mazda 3 and drove the civic today..... overall, I love the Mazda even more now. Well, it costs more, but it is worth it. (I'm just looking for a secind car..)
soemtime I want to drive the 2.0 l MazdaSedan. But the civic is no match for the Mazda 2.3 l engine. At low rpm you just can't drive it whereas the Mazda drives well below 2000 rpm. Also, the trunk in the civic is a joke....
backseat room is okay and spacious.
The dealer told me honda put the oil changes back to 5000 miles and it has a timing belt..... well..... that makes up for the mileage and makes me consider a second Mazda even more (chain, 7500 miles maintenance). Can anyone confirm that?
I love the safety features and that's why i was loking forward to the Civic. but Mazda has tons af Mazdas with ABS/SAB available. so that is not the deciding factor (while Toyota drove me away with their non-availability of safety features).
I don't know how the lack of lumbar support bothers me on long drives. I can sit in the Mazda for 2 hours (our longest trip so far) and it is very comfortable. But how is it in the civic w/o lumbar support? (I have a bad back..).
Economy is weird.. a Mazda 3i touring with the ABS/SAB package costs about the same as a civic LX but has more features including a temperature gauge for coolant and ambient temperature. The trunk work in hte Mazda is much better. The civic trunk is more like a Hyundai trunk. Especially when you lift the bottom and see how the spare wheel is fit in. Though, I'm not sure about the 4-door Mazda since we have a 5-door one. but 4 wheel independent suspension, 4 disc brakes.... all that puts the Mazda in a higher category. A 5-door Mazda 3 grand touring outcompetes a Honda Accord (which doesn't have xenons etc.) easily. Economywise.. and costs way less.
Well, the civic has better mileage. But if the maintenance really has to be done at 5000 miles and it has a timing belt, that makes up for the gas. My Mazda gets 34 MPG highway (only 2500 miles old..). so a 2.0 Mazda should get 35-36 MPG. close to the 38 MPG a Civic gets. throw in 400$ for timing belt change and 50% more maintenance (at least more oil changes) and we have a $-tie. And the car I love I keep for more years than the car i don't love. Keeping a car for 5 years instead of only 3 for example makes up for any price differnce. Really, I drove volkswagen and audis.... and I really love driving the Mazda 3.
by no means I want to imply the civic was bad.... way better than those american cars or the Koreans. but not as good as the Mazda 3. I didn't even talk about the digital speedometer in the civic. Weird.... the speedometer in a separate area above the rpm gauge. this calls for speeding tickets. I already know my wife won't love it. You really have to get used to it... but it will always be hard to read the speed and the rpm (which you want with an MT car)
The civic is quiet. Maybe the Mazda is louder at the same rpm... but you can drive it at way lower rpm. Even when i drive 70 mph with the Mazda it is not loud (unfortunately the dealer was with me, so i couldn't get on the highway with the civic). And neither car is noisy. And who cares about a little engine noise when we talk about sports cars? :-)
Well, every day i love our decision more and more that our main car is the Mazda 5-door MT.. end if it is just for the trunk. The civic is a single driver or secondary car (which it would be in our case if we got it), but is not a family car.
The glove compartment in the Civic is standard and no match to the Mazda huge one (a laptop could fit in that one).
anohter thing, the civic is sold at a high price, the Mazda I could get at innvoice. Both brands don't give discounts, which is very good since it speaks for the quality and depreciation.
Can anyone confirm the information about the oil change intervals in the 2006 civic? And does it have a timing belt to be replaced after 110000 miles? Or a chain?

thegraduate · October 2005

The dealer told me honda put the oil changes back to 5000 miles and it has a timing belt..... well..... that makes up for the mileage and makes me consider a second Mazda even more (chain, 7500 miles maintenance).

Since the early 90s (probably earlier) Honda has recommended oil changes every 7,500 hundred miles (check the owner's manual, it will confirm). Now, Honda has pushed maintenence intervals back to every 10,000 miles, even better than the 3. You already own a 3, and like its low-end torque, and probably value that over the mileage discrepancy. IMO, you probably won't change your mind to a Civic if you value what you already have, which is a great little car. I just didn't want you to feel that the Civic needed more maintenence than the 3, because it actually needs less. You can check an owner's manual to confirm what I told you, and feel free to!. Hope I helped in this respect

anohter thing, the civic is sold at a high price, the Mazda I could get at innvoice. Both brands don't give discounts, which is very good since it speaks for the quality and depreciation.

If you need a car in the next month, you are right, a Civic will not be discounted much by a dealer. If you can stand to wait until early 2006 (try March), I will bet you can find dealers actually dealing on Civics much more.

earlthom · October 2005

(Sorry for slow reply) To get the 60/40 split in a Civic you have to move up to the EX. That also gives the 4-wheel disc brakes and steering wheel mounted audio controls (and sunroof, 6-speaker stereo and a few other bells and whistles.) Probably a better comparison for the 3i Touring, but no EX was available to test drive. EX and LX have the same engine and transmission, though. Trunk seemed reasonably roomy for a compact sedan in the Honda - no obvious difference with the 3i in that respect. Anyway - if I want to haul cargo, I have my wife's Accord. (Don't laugh - I once fit 40 8' 2x4's in her ('91) Accord - trunk shut!)

Clearly the 3 offers a few more features and Honda is playing catch-up. Still - I wonder about other's experience with the tranny on the Civic.

MD

herrkaleu · October 2005

I realize that a civic doesn't come close to our car... but that is not necessary since we lok for a second car which makes us compromise for the money.
So, 10000 miles oil changes and a timing chain? If that is so, the civic is back in the equation. Only interested in the LX.
I'd love to look into the Corolla for money reasons. But our minimum requirement is safety, which requires ABS and 6 airbags. and honestly, the corolla has fewer safety features than a KIA Rio (well, in theory a Corolla can have 6 bags ans AB... but not in reality)

z71bill · October 2005

The oil change schedule for most cars is really two schedules - one for "Normal" driving and one for "severe" conditions.

The difference is things like heavy stop and go traffic, very hot or cold - dusty conditions or many short trips.

Seems to me most drivers should use the shorter period between oil changes - so in the case of the Mazda3 that would be every 4 months or 5K miles

The schedule if most of your miles are longer trips is 12 months or 7.5K miles -

Seems a little strange (all cars not just Mazda)

Because any car that is driven mostly on longer trips (like a 40 mile commute to work) will have way more than 7,500 miles in 12 months (625 miles per month)

But anyone who is more or a short trip driver will never go 5,000 miles in only 4 months. (1,250 miles per month)

I know - it is which ever comes FIRST - but seems like the miles and months should balance out - I could come up with a situation - like if you are a cab driver - or if you only take the vehicle on long "vacations" a few times per year - but this is just not how most people use their cars.

Not being critical - but the decision over which new car I buy would never come down to something like which one can go a few thousand miles more between oil changes - there are just to many other things that would over shadow that - but if it is really that close of a decision then I would just go with the one that felt the best coming out of a sharp corner!

herrkaleu · October 2005

the oil change is not the deciding factor... but overall maintenance cost is one of them.
I absolutely wouldn't call driving in wisconsin severe... Well, Winter and Summer....
not too much stop and go (unless you are only dowm town).
sure, dealers call everything severe to make more money. In other countries the oil changes are set to twice or three fold the periods in the US (even with the same engines). And there is no single problem with break downs related to "old" oil. Well, longer intervals mean you reall have to watch the oil level (too little oil definitely is way worse than old oil). Our car now gets to the 3000 miles and the oil becomes visible, not dirty, but visible. Before I had a hard time reading the level because the oil was still so clear.
Dealers even still recommend the 3000 mile intervals. Well, of course they do :-)
Old habbits don't die..... but technology just gets better and stuff lives longer. Cars back in Communism had 3000 miles oil changes. Those times are long over....
The same with the timing belt. I owned a Hyundai Getz (sold in germany) with a 36000 miles timing belt change. 2000 civics had 60000 miles belts. 2005 ones had 110000 timing belt changes. I'm sure none broke before that time. The technology just got better. The same with the oil.
as long as you don't really drive severely (towingtrailers, San Fran Cisco stop and go, Racing, only 3 miles trips...) the regular manufacturer recommended schedule seems fine. That already has a cussion.
I once reas that CR tested NY City cabs with 3000 and 6000 miles oil changes.... o measurable difference once they took the engines apart. And I really doubt my car goes through what a NYC cab goes through.
I suppose, if you follow the MANUFACTURERS maintenance schedule you won't have problems related to lack of maintenance. But if you listen to a dealer who hires salepersons that don't even know if a 2006 Civic has a chain or a belt, you pay too much. Anyway, you'd be on the safe side with making the OEM recommended maintenance or with the more frequent dealer one.

whipped95 · November 2005

For those of you with kids have you considered the Mazda 5. It was recalled but, all 5s will be repaired very soon.
For us there is no other vehicle out there that fits our needs (2adult +1child) the way the 5 does. It's super versatile with its seating arrangements, and the sliding rear doors are a dream. All this without having to drive around in a non fuel efficient oversized van/suv or a geeky box on wheels. We love the exterior, but the interior is awesome, from the ride height to the 10 drink holders. The console is well designed and all controls are well within reach and the fit and finish is really nice. It all looks like it just a big solid piece with no seems or gaps like our rental cars. Spend a few weeks in a 5 then try and go back to another car, in our case an Equinox and Lancer and you'll truly hate them. I bought my 5spd 5 fully loaded with sunroof and NAV system for $19,200 USD under the s plan and gerber rebate,not to mention the extra $500 cash for the recall will bring the price to $18,700. Sticker was $21,500. We're happy

We owned a Mazda6 4 door sedan for a couple of years which we quickly outgrew. When we had comfirmation of another kid on the way we wanted something larger but still carlike in nature. The 5 came along as a surprise and even with the recall, don't regret a mile in it. However either of the 3 cars listed in this title are nice. I personally like the looks interior/exterior of the 3s the best. The mazda styling has always caught my eye. Either way have fun and pick the one you like.

allfiredup · November 2005

I drove the Mazda5 for the first time a few weekends ago at a Mazda Zoom Zoom Live event. I got to put it thru the paces on a test track and was AMAZED how much fun it is.

It retains much of the fun to drive characteristic of the Mazda3. Basically feels like a slightly taller 3 with a lot more room. The automatic 5 I drove felt about as quick as a 3 automatic I test drove.

I really hope the recall doesn't hurt sales. Right now, the 5 is one of a kind in the U.S. market. If a 3 is too small, definitely deserves a look.

mdaffron · November 2005

All this without having to drive around in a non fuel efficient oversized van/suv or a geeky box on wheels.

... And what "geeky box on wheels" might you be referring to, SCIONtifically speaking?

The Mazda5 was very high on my list, being in the same 2 adults + 1 child arrangement you're in. It was Mazda's fault, however, that I wound up not buying one. Mazda didn't come out with the danged thing fast enough, and I fell in love with the 3 hatch!

My son Sean (4-1/2 years old) just LOVES zoomin' through the twisties with dad in the car "he" picked out -- yessss, he did help Daddy choose the color ... that's why THIS 40-year-old is screamin' around town, grinning ear-to-ear, in a 2005 Velocity Red 5-speed hatch! And we've found it very accommodating, even for all of us plus luggage for a 5-day, 800-mile (round-trip) trip to Pittsburgh!

BTW, the only way you'll catch us in your 5 is if you double-park at the day care ...

:shades:

Meade

bfyerxa · November 2005

Actually, my wife's next vehicle is going to be a Mazda5. It is sitting waiting for the recall parts. Hopefully we will have it by end of November. This is to replace an 02 CRV coming off lease. My wife loves the CRV and is a staunch Honda person, but the 5 was good enough to win her over. Seating for 6 (well, 4 adults and 2 kids max), reasonable mileage, all the safety features, and good dynamics all for $5k CDN less than the CRV. My wife will only drive a manual, so the 2.3l in the 5 is acceptable (it would be too slow for us in the auto). It is the perfect family vehicle for us.

Therefore, my vehicle is the "second" car and I mainly highway commute with it (although I still shuttle the kids a fair bit). What is interesting is that I got an Accord 4 years ago because a Civic (or similar) was too small when trying to get a 1 year old in and out of her car seat. However, now that they are older (7 and 5) they climb in and do themselves up, so I can actually go to a smaller car. I had figured I would get the Mazda3 2.0l, but the new Civic has sure grabbed my attention with its standard safety features and refined ride.

claudius753 · November 2005

Wow, if that isn't a change. Normally I see people getting an auto because the wife couldn't drive stick. A refreshing change to see someone who had to get a manual because the wife refused to drive auto.

bfyerxa · November 2005

Yep. She hates autos as she feels she has no control over them. It is actually scary :surprise: to watch her drive an auto in the snow as she was never taught how to drive an auto properly, i.e., shift into neutral when things get crazy, etc.

I like driving sticks as well so its great for us as it opens up doors to vehicles like the Mazda5 which IMO are too slow with an auto transmission. It also gives us other potential options like the new Sonata GL 5spd which has tremendous value and good performance.

bobw3 · November 2005

Just don't tell that to Jiffy Lube!

allfiredup · November 2005

My sister and I are the only people we know who are both like this. I'm 30 and she's 33, neither of us have ever had an automatic. She and her husband always have a tough time picking a car because she insists on a manual. Luckily lots of mid-sizers still offer them.

bottgers · November 2005

....older Corollas and Civics (about '95 to '01 models) because I need an economical second car. One major difference I've noticed between these two cars is how their engines produce power. The Honda's 1.7 liter (1.5 liter for earlier models) basically has no bottom end torque and makes the vast majority of it's power at high rpm while the Corolla's 1.8 seems to have a much broader powerband that delivers a decent amount of power throughout it's entire rpm range. To me this makes the Corolla more pleasureable to drive than the Civic. There is also something else that sticks in my head about the Corolla ever since I heard it in this forum; someone once described the Corolla as a "baby Lexus" and I would say that is a very accurate description. Once you are able to look past the bland styling and you start to take notice of this car's qualities, it doesn't take long to find out these are very well built cars. From the smart interior ergos to the technologically advanced yet simple mechanics under the hood to the very solid overall build quality of the entire vehicle, it's no wonder the Corolla has been around for so long and sells so well. I think a Corolla will be my next purchase, now it's just a matter of finding one with a manual tranny at the right price.....

backy · November 2005

The only major downside for the '98-'02 Corolla IMO is the cramped back seat. That was enough to eliminate it for me back in '00 as I have 3 kids. The Civic's seat from that era is much more hospitable, especially '01 and later. Toyota fixed that for '03 but ruined the driving position.

bottgers · November 2005

.....won't be an issue for me because 95% of the time I'm alone. Driver's seat comfort will be much more important. Also, does anyone know what kind of highway MPG the pre '01 models with manual tannies get? I've heard of people getting low to mid 40's with the '01 and newer models, I'm just wondering if the older models are comparable.

ctalk · November 2005

The only major downside for the '98-'02 Corolla IMO is the cramped back seat.

I had an '01 Corolla, and wow was the back seat small. I'm quite tall (about 6'1" and hardly anyone could sit in the back seat.

The '03 Corolla was a major improvement. But ruined the driving position.

allfiredup · November 2005

Revving the engine in the Civic to get to the power band is part of the fun to drive experience. I agree that it doesn't have much torque, but once you wind it up it'll scoot.

If this doesn't suit your driving style, the Corolla does easier to access power. It's just boring as heck. The Civic feels much sportier.

At least either way you're getting something bulletproof.

bottgers · November 2005

To me, having more power throughout the RPM range isn't boring, it makes the car more driveable. I don't like having to rev an engine before it can do what it's supposed to do. My brother-in-law had a '94 or '95 Civic. I think it had a 1.5 liter engine (the same size engine my Tercel has) and it would definitely scoot. At high RPM's it accelerated much harder than my Tercel does, but at lower RPM's my Tercel has more useable power. I think you're right though, I can't go wrong with either of these cars.

robl1 · November 2005

During the past 6 weeks I test drove all 3 of these cars. The Corolla feels dated and the handling felt a bit sloppy. Also I was buying a car for my teenage son to use and despite a plethora of Corollas at the dealer only a few had ABS and side airbags. However the Corolla would be the lowest priced of these cars as the dealer was quite ready to give major discounts.
Next was the all new Honda Civic. You'll either love or hate the new "space-age" dashboard with digital speedometer (I didn't care for it). I drove to the dealer in my 1997 Civic. Surprisingly the 2006 did not feel more powerful than the 1997 despite the extra horsepower. LX model has rear drum brakes not disc brakes. Pluses of the new Civic inlude standard ABS and side airbags on all Lx and ex models, standard combo cd/mp3 cd player, and clearly the best gas mileage with an epa rated 40 mpg highway. However the dealer had no LX models with AT on the lot and would order one only at full msrp.
Finally I test drove a Mazda3i touring. The salesman had me drive it on a winding country road with lots of hills. Smart move. No hesitation of the engine in uphill driving. Curves are taken almost like you were in a BMW. Its not a sports car but close to it. Its fun to drive. Driver's seat has adjustable lumbar support (not present in either of the other cars). Steering column is completely adjustable. 205/55 16 inch tires really grip the road. ABS and SAB or optional but they had a large selection of cars equipped that way on the lot. Gas mileage is clearly the worst of the group. Figure on $800-1000 off msrp.
I settled on a red Mazda3 because it looked great and did not drive like an economy car.

mylai1 · November 2005

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/22/Autos/honda_civic_motortrend/index.htm

audia8q · November 2005

This is the same magazine that gave the Renault Alliance car of the year. :P

backy · November 2005

Usually the sour grapes comments from owners of other brands mention the Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare COTY. :P

mdaffron · November 2005

Figures.

Definition of "trend," from dictionary.com:

1. The general direction in which something tends to move.
2. A general tendency or inclination.
3. Current style; vogue: the latest trend in fashion.

Civics indeed are very general cars, made for the masses who want cookie-cutter transportation. And Motor Trend doesn't want to hurt its advertisers -- they know full well they can't go wrong endorsing the most popular small car in the country! A very safe move from an equally wishy-washy magazine.

Besides, it's nice to share. The Mazda3 can't have all the awards.

http://www.mazda.com/product/mazda3/4a/2w/reputation.html

Meade

backy · November 2005

You haven't looked at or driven the new Civic, especially the Si, have you? I didn't think so.

As for hurting advertisers, all the auto makers advertise in MT, so that's not a factor. As for popular, two years ago the COTY went to a car that at the time had less than 40,000/year in U.S. sales--might even be less than the U.S. sales of the Mazda3!

autonomous · November 2005

The Mazda3 can't have all the awards.
Yeah, car of the year in Turkey, Slovenia, Croatia and Canada! We know how to pick 'em!

In spite of the fact that the Mazda3 is a great car I don't think it is a revolutionary one; one could argue that the Civic is. Honda's accomplishment with the Civic suite is in its popularization of fuel-efficiency. The Insight was one of the first hybrids on the road but its shortcomings were obvious; the Civic is the one that will be making real the promise for a green car that is not a prototype but the real thing. The Accord Hybrid is another wonderful achievement. Mazda needs to step up to the plate and start showing they can engineer something not only stylish, affordable, powerful but also fuel-efficient. The bar is being set by Toyota and Honda: how does 50 mpg average fuel economy sound to you?

mdaffron · November 2005

The bar is being set by Toyota and Honda: how does 50 mpg average fuel economy sound to you?

Here's how it sounds to me!

http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=21225877&brk=1

You asked!

Meade

audia8q · November 2005

Here is the complete list....some impressive cars and some really lame ones. If I was working at motor trend I would hang my head in shame over some previous winners.

Motor Trend Car of the Year Complete Winners List
The complete list of every car that has ever won the award

Motor Trend

2006 Honda Civic
2005 Chrysler 300
2004 Toyota Prius
2003 Infiniti G35 Coupe / Sedan
2002 Ford Thunderbird
2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser
2000 Lincoln LS
1999 Chrysler 300M
1998 Chevrolet Corvette
1997 Chevrolet Malibu
1996 Dodge Caravan
1995 Chrysler Cirrus
1994 Ford Mustang
1993 Ford Probe GT
1992 Cadillac Seville Touring Sedan
1991 Chevrolet Caprice Classic LTZ
1990 Lincoln Town Car
1989 Ford Thunderbird SC
1988 Pontiac Grand Prix
1987 Ford Thunderbird
1986 Ford Taurus LX
1985 Volkswagen GTI
1984 Chevrolet Corvette
1983 American Motors Renault Alliance
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
1981 Chrysler K-cars, Dodge Aries/Plymouth Reliant
1980 Chevrolet Citation
1979 Buick Riviera S
1978 Chrysler, Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon
1977 Chevrolet Caprice
1976 Chrysler, Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare
1975 Chevrolet Monza 2+2 V-8
1974 Ford Mustang II
1973 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
1972 Citroen SM
1971 Chevrolet Vega
1970 Ford Torino
1969 Plymouth Road Runner
1968 Pontiac GTO
1967 Mercury Cougar
1966 Oldsmobile Toronado
1965 Pontiac Motor Division
1964 Ford Motor Company
1963 American Motors Rambler
1962 Buick Special
1961 Pontiac Tempest
1960 Chevrolet Corvair
1959 Pontiac Motor Division
1958 Ford Thunderbird
1957 Chrysler Corporation
1956 Ford Motor Company
1955 No Award
1954 No Award
1953 No Award
1952 Cadillac Motor Car Division
1951 Chrysler Corporation
1950 No award
1949 Cadillac Motor Car Division

mdaffron · November 2005

They've given the award for 54 years, and non-American makes have won it only five times?!

And three of those import winnings have taken place in the last four years, so prior to 1993, in FIFTY years of this award, it went to non-American cars only TWICE -- and then for a VW and a Citroen???

I'll let the list speak for itself. Honda's new Civic has a lot of, er, "historic" automobiles it can call company in this award: trend-setting vehicles like the K-Car, the Renault Alliance and the Chevy Vega, to name a few.

Geesh! No wonder I never subscribed to that waste of a mag.

Meade

autonomous · November 2005

http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=21225877&brk=1

Hi Meade!
Actually the story is ... that the EPA is not being realistic in their testing. Consumer Reports, which has been arguing for real world testing, downgrades EPA estimates routinely by 20% for many cars. So, it is no surprise that the EPA got it wrong for the Prius and other hybrids. That does not disprove the fact that hybrids are more fuel-efficient than most dino-mobiles.

"We explain to everyone when they buy the car that those EPA estimates are theoretical," said David Burrill, hybrid salesman for Toyota of Berkeley in California ... "During the first week or so, they may get 42 or 43 mpg, but after that, customers tell us they're getting 48 or 49."

I'm a big fan of Mazda and applaud their long-term hydrogen experiments. What's missing is the short to mid-term proof. Now, if you hear something on the wires about a Mazda3 generating 200 hp and averaging 50 mpg, tune me in. Ford is actually further along the road than Mazda. It may be heresy to some, but maybe Ford has to step in and lay down the law for all their brands. Maybe Mazda needs to learn a thing or two from big brother.

autonomous · November 2005

Further to the previous post, here is news from the recent Tokyo Motor Show about Mazda's hybrid and hydrogen plans, including an upcoming Mazda Tribute Hybrid that is based on the Ford Escape. It's happening!

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103322

thegraduate · November 2005

Yes, such cars as Nissan 300ZX won the title of "Import Car of the Year" before the magazine dropped the award and decided to have just one. This is why no imports are really found in the pre-1990s awards. The import car-of-the-year s are not mentioned here. There used to be two awards, one for foreign, one fore domestic. Don't count your chickens, Meade.

Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla vs Mazda3

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles