Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla vs Mazda3

1679111217

Comments

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,435
    I may be wrong, but I think this might be the first Civic with a height adjuster. If not, it is still a firly recent development for Honda.

    Not sure about the COrolla, but if it has one it must be pretty simple.

    I almost bought a Pro5, largely because of how comfy the seats were, and how easy it was to get a good angle with the dual adjusters. Not quite as quick/easy as the ratchet, but once I get it right, I don't change it much. THe 3 was a step backward for sure.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    The high-end Accords started getting the height adjustment around '95 or '96. It was just a toggle switch that moved it up and down. My '97 Accord EX had it and I don't think I ever used it once I had it where I wanted it.

    I don't think the previous generation Civic had it, though. In their defense, Honda has always had some of the best seats in the business. Even my old '92 Accord EX (totalled last week, god rest her soul) was comfy on 500 mile drives, although the lumbar adjustment was basically useless (felt like a wood log behind your back). I never used it.

    In the Mazda3, are the leather seats any different at all than the cloth? Or the Grand Touring? I got the cloth, didn't even try a leather one.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I am pretty sure the last-gen Civic added a height adjuster to at least the EX trim level mid-generation. It was the single-adjustment type, not dual adjustment as we have been discussing. I remember that was a major factor in my buying an Elantra in October 2000 vs. the '01 Civic EX, the driving position was not as adjustable (and comfortable) as on the Elantra.

    Even the Accord has a single height adjustment until you get to the full power seat.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,435
    at least in the 3, it makes the seats a little cushier than the rather firm cloth. If you get it aftermarket, I assume you have options with the padding (more or less), and could probably reshape the foam a bit.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    Did Mazda change the leather they are using?

    I looked at a 2005 and it had the same stiff - hard - cheap leather that was being used in the 2004 model. It was like sitting on thick plastic. This was the main reason we went with the cloth.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    The Honda civic but it just didn't have enough performance. The Mazda 3 2.3L had the same horsepower as the 2005 Civic Si.

    Then came the 2006 Civics, especially the Si.

    Not contest, I have a Rallye Red Si on order. I hope it is a much fun as my CRX Si and my GSR were.

    double 6 cruis'n,

    MidCow
  • acgoodacgood Member Posts: 9
    I drove both of these cars yesterday (Hartford, CT area). Though I still may end up buying a larger car, I don't know how anyone could drive these two back to back and walk away prefering the Corolla.

    The Corolla had slightly larger trunk and better room in the back seat I'd say. The driver seat also goes back further to accomodate those of use with long legs. However, when I put the seat back to a comfortable distance, the steering wheel was much to far away. I knew the driving position was unacceptable for me before I made it off the dealer lot. I don't know what posessed them to give it such a stumpy steering wheel. The drive feel was about what I expected from a Corolla, not quite enough kick going 0-45 as I would prefer, but okay. The one I drove lacked ABS and side air bags, so sticker was ~17k.

    I had to sit in the Civic for a couple minutes to just absorb the interior. I honestly still don't know if I like it, but the dash layout grew on me as I drove. I still found myself lookign down at the tachometer where my eyes are trained to look for the speed display. The engine and power are a significant step up from the current Corolla. Didn't get to take them onto the highway this time though. The 140 hp engine was pretty good but still felt like nothing compared to the 2005 i4 Camry LE (10k miles) I also drove at the same time. That may end up being my choice for about $500 more than the Civic.

    Happy holidays to all!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The 140 hp engine was pretty good but still felt like nothing compared to the 2005 i4 Camry LE (10k miles) I also drove at the same time.

    This probably has less to do with the horsepower difference (14, I think, by the new standards)and more to do with the torque (32 lb-ft). The Camry does have 33% more displacement than the Civic does, so it's understandable. The Civic gets 6mpg better, so its a trade-off if you don't mind buying used. Let us know what you pick, and good luck! Either car would likely be a good choice (assuming the Camry was treated nicely by owner number 1).
  • keptnamekeptname Member Posts: 51
    I too test drove both of these models and actually did walk away with a preference for the corolla. The civic seat was uncomfortable. The neck part sits forward far enough to strain my neck (I'm 5'2'') and the seat part was a bit hard. Plus, I absolutely hate the large dash and the set up. I don't need added distractions right at the viewing of the road. The frame around the front part of the window is inconvenient for viewing pedestrians and cars during left turns. I found myself having to do a lot of double checking.

    The corolla drove smoother, but the civic had a bit more pick up and a go (for a 4cyl). This was so dissapointing because I had my heart set on the civic. It has all of the safety features i want as standard (esp side airbags) and I could more easily purchase it. The corolla will take longer for me to find with these options. However, my view was not obstructed and the seats were more comfy.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Your experience confirms what I have read and experienced with the Corolla--its driving position is optimized for shorter people. I found the driving position of the Corolla to be intolerable (I'm 5'10"). If the Corolla is more comfortable, that is a big deal--you will probably regret it later if you get a car that doesn't "fit" you. If you have trouble finding a Corolla with ABS and SABs, ask your dealer to locate one for you from another dealer.
  • crissmancrissman Member Posts: 145
    This is interesting. My wife complained that the headrest on my new '06 Civic was pushing her head forward. She's about 5'4". I'm about 5'10" and have no problem with it.
  • keptnamekeptname Member Posts: 51
    Thanks Backy. I've been debating if I should just put up with the discomfort and get a civic. I think I will go with the corolla. Now its just a matter of getting through the negotiation process.
  • keptnamekeptname Member Posts: 51
    I think what Backy said is true. Shorter people have a difficult time with the seat position in the civic. I just found this as well.
    http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=436690
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Has anyone seen or heard if there is a new Corolla comming out soon? I'm really currious to see if it will be a big change, kind of like how the 2007 Camry is a vast improvement from the 2006.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Actually, what I said was that taller people have found the Corolla's seat uncomfortable. I found the Civic's seat to be OK, but not great.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The next Corolla should be out as a 2008 model, sometime in 2007, if Toyota follows its traditional 5-year cycle. I think the 2003 Corolla came out early in 2002, so that could mean an early 2007 launch for the next Corolla. All this is supposition, based on history.
  • rooskierooskie Member Posts: 26
    Where did you see that? I saw something on that too, but it was a discussion forum like this one with a photoshopped picture of a "2007 Civic Si sedan"--in other words, it was someone's fantasy. Is there a press release from Honda or something else official?

    Here:

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=109257
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Which proves that sometimes wishes do come true!
  • newcivicmannewcivicman Member Posts: 14
    I am also 5'10" and was unable to sit comfortably in the drivers seat of the Corolla...steering wheel is to far away and the angle of the seat is weird. I also found the brakes a bit weaker on the Corolla. Its also was hard to find one with the right options, ABS, airbags, upgraded stereo.(standard radio is poor). The 2006 Civic LX handled better, had better braking and was basically more impressive/fun to drive than the Corolla.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    The Civic Si Sedan is more than a photoshop rumor it was announced as a concept car at 2006 Chicago Auto Show: http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=495409
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Ok. I just drove a Corolla LE for 100 miles (Huntsville to Birmingham, my girlfriend's car). It was the most awkward thing to drive! I could see out of it well, but the seat is too small for me, and I had to bow my legs in order to have the seat close enough to reach the steering wheel! It drove fine, plenty of power, slightly buzzy/boomy engine, good handling (it was interstate, no real twisties), but I'm glad I didn't bother test driving this. It would have been a waste of time since I am 6'5".

    BTW, I test drove a Civic in October and was quite comfortable in it, although not quite as good as the Accord I ended up with.
  • stinkyreeferstinkyreefer Member Posts: 5
    Make sure you don’t leave out the Mazda3 on your test drive. I just bought one and had test drove all three of these vehicles. The Mazda3 hands down drives in a league WAY above the corolla, and even better than the civic. Most importantly, it cost me a couple thousand less than the Civic LX, and has better features (4 wheel disc brakes, alloys, stereo controls on the steering wheel, etc) If you are concerned about gas mileage, I wouldn’t buy the 2.3 which by the way is so much more powerful than either the civic or corolla it shouldn’t be in the same class. I bought the 2.0 liter because I drive a lot, it's still way faster than the other two cars. If you're in Socal, I had a great experience at Irvine Mazda. Tony at the internet dept. there hooked me up with a crazy deal and I was in and out of the dealership in (I swear to God), 15 minutes. I don’t have any affiliation with Mazda, the dealership or know the guy at all outside of this transaction. Hopefully their future service is as good.
  • leavenfish1leavenfish1 Member Posts: 65
    My girlfriend is probably 5'6" and even with her short legs has to reach WAY too far for the wheel (Carolla)...unless she's sitting too close then her legs are scrunched up badly...and that 'arm rest' is a joke...if your elbows hung down to your knees it might work, but it's just WAY too low. How could they have so badly designed this??
  • slateracslaterac Member Posts: 85
    I tried to fit in the corolla yesterday, I'm 6'3", and I couldn't even get my knee past the steering wheel. Maybe that's not the case for all tall people but when I went to the dealer and asked to see if I fit we both just laughed because we didn't think I would and I didn't. But I think that the tall people should try it first and find out that way you can see and either cross it off your list or add it to it if you have enough leg room. I'm looking at the civic and the mazda 3 now that the corolla doesn't fit me. I think everyone should try and make sure though because I'd hate to give advice saying not to try the car at all.

    thanks.

    slaterac.
  • nubenube Member Posts: 1
    Hi. I'm in the Kansas City suburbs and am looking to purchase one of the three cars listed here.

    Recently, I went to five dealerships for each make of car listed here. I test drove all three cars and drew some immediate conclusions. For background, I'm a well-spoken, 31 year old executive at a manufacturing corporation. I currently drive a fully-loaded 1990 Nissan Maxima 6cyl AT that has 211,000 miles. I'm looking for another dependable 4dr sedan with higher fuel efficiency.

    First, about the dealerships themselves:

    1) Honda dealerships in the KC metro area act as if they're selling BMWs. They're all slick 40-something guys that act like they don't want to sell a car. They've been unresponsive when I walk in wearing jeans & a t-shirt, slightly more responsive when I walk in wearing a suit. Honda dealerships were by far the least friendly I've visited, with the fewest amenities for the customers. Honda dealerships won't move at all on MSRPs and, in fact, twice tried to sell a car to me ABOVE MSRP without justification. None of the Honda dealerships tried to sell me anything other than exactly the car I asked for, with a couple outright saying that they had none of those models+trim on the lot and wouldn't, then thanking me for my time and showing me the door. Overall, they were a D- experience.

    2) Toyota dealerships in the KC metro area seem to want to sell cars to anyone and everyone, but are hit and miss for salesmen. Overall, Toyota dealerships seem to cater to a younger crowd, and the salesmen & women are very friendly, treated me the same no matter what I was wearing, and appear to want my business. Toyota dealerships are the least 'proud' of the three in terms of dickering MSRP sticker prices. Toyota salesmen & women have actively tried to move me into a higher or lower priced car when I showed no interest in their offer on Corollas. Overall, they were a B+ experience.

    3) Mazda dealerships in the KC metro area are pretty chic. The salesmen & women are all young, attractively dressed, and obviously know they've got a hot lineup of cars. I was met at the door of each dealership, immediately given a salesman, and asked if I wanted anything to drink. They didn't care what I was wearing and generally were friendly, although they all had that 'plastic' smile. Mazda dealerships weren't willing to move on the price of Mazda3's much, but did actively offer me certified pre-owned models as well as Mazda6's instead. Overall, they were a B+ experience.

    Now, on to the cars:

    The Honda Civic is a fantastic car, no matter which model or trim package you get. Unfortunately, with the horrible, holier-than-thou attitude of the dealerships and salesmen & women, I won't be buying one, even though the Civic was at the top of my list and the dealerships here are offering a 10yr/100k powertrain warranty at no extra charge.

    Toyota Corolla is a great car as well, coming in a close second on my list. The car drives well and is comfortable. The gas mileage is the best out of the three, and the total cost of ownership is the least out of the three. I like it and am seriously considering purchasing one. The only limiting factor is the standard warranty. It's horrible, and none of the dealerships wanted to toss in an extended warranty to secure my purchase. That makes me wonder how reliable the car will be!

    The Mazda3 is by far the sportiest out of three compared here, and also is the highest TCO and lowest fuel efficiency. After reading extensively about the real world fuel economy of these, I've decided that I have no desire to downgrade from my 1990 Nissan Maxima's 28-30 MPG. While the Mazda3 is the most comparable to my Maxima, it just doesn't suit my tastes. Also, I get the impression that it's not that well-made, as each of the five I test drove had creaks and groans when I got in the car and while driving. Lastly, the ABS brakes did not feel very solid at all while driving in the city during my extended, whole-weekend test drive.

    In conclusion, Honda lost a prospective customer due to horrible service. Toyota is attractive overall, scoring points in every category over the competition. Mazda, while having great looking cars, needs to work on real world fuel economy and build quality.
  • stinkyreeferstinkyreefer Member Posts: 5
    I did the same thing as you did in terms of shopping. However, the dealership experiences were are similar. Rather pleasent really, maybe because I drove my Lexus there and told them upfront I had cash for the transaction. The only dealership I didnt like was VW, way too pushy and kept offering me dals that were weak IMO. Anyway, I ended up purchasing a Mazda3. I can tell you that the brakes are superb for such a low end car. I really like it overall. I have the 2.0, MT and just got to about 5k miles. I average 29pmg, that is driving with a lead foot, AC, 87 octane, and in traffic both ways during my 25mi each way commute in southern california. I thought the corolla drove like crap. Civic was 2nd choice on my list, but didnt get it becasue the 3 was cheaper than the civic LX and offered 4 wheel discs, steering wheel stereo controls, and alloy wheels. Those are things that only the civic EX has which would have cost me $5k more than my 3 did. I'd say to take another look at the 3.
  • mcap56mcap56 Member Posts: 48
    I think you can't go wrong no matter what car you get. However, here in NY, I had the opposite dealer experience. The toyota dealers and Mazda dealers were far less professional than the local honda dealers.

    Not only were the honda dealers willing to go well below MSRP, they gave me a great deal on my trade in. My current dealer offers free loaner cars for service, a heated waiting area to drop off your cars, free drinks/coffee and 23 dollar oil changes. All of my dealing, at several dealerships was done over the internet. Got a great quote and didn't have to haggle much.

    Depends on where you are. I would keep looking a travel a bit if you like one car over another. There are good and bad dealerships for every brand.

    Marc
  • mcdawggmcdawgg Member Posts: 1,722
    The standard warranty on the Corolla is 3/36 bumper to bumper, 5/60 powertrain. Honda is the same now, only recently matching Toyota's warranty. Only Hyundai/Kia have better.

    The Honda dealer was trying to "throw" in a normally extra cost extended warranty, probably by inflating the price of the car to cover the cost of the warranty.

    You do not have to worry about the reliability of the Corolla - it is the best (or maybe tied for first place.) That's why I have always had one. And I never bought the extended warranty. If I would have bought the warranty, I would have lost money due to not using it!!
  • philphilphilphil Member Posts: 15
    Hi Marc,

    Where in the new York area are you talking about. I'm in Brooklyn.

    Phil
  • mcap56mcap56 Member Posts: 48
    Hi Phil:

    I am in Brooklyn also!! The dealerships I have had the best luck with were Honda of Nanuet and Brewster Honda. Brewster consistently had the lowest prices and Nanuet is the most professional dealership of the group. My friend seemed to have gotten a good deal over in Queens.

    Worth a little drive to get a good deal.

    Marc
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Nube -

    If the Civic is truely at the top of your list (and your only issue appears to be the sales experience), you might try what I did when my wife and I were in the market for a new '05 Odyssey when they first came out.

    Go online and check dealer inventory. Find 3-4 dealer's with vehicles in-stock that would meet your requirements. E-mail those dealers BUT INCLUDE YOUR BUY OFFER ON THE CAR. Don't just e-mail asking what their best price is.

    Also, explain HOW you arrive at your asking price. Explain that you know what the dealer invoice price is (you can get this info from Edmunds), that you know what the dealer holdback is (I can't remember what it was with Honda's but I think it was 2% of the MSRP). Then explain that you understand the dealer must make some profit on the car (perhaps 4%) above the dealer's true cost. This would be how you might arrive at your buy offer.

    Then explain that you've located suitable cars at OTHER dealers (you might even name the dealer's; they can check inventory online to see that you are telling the truth) and that you've sent similar e-mails to their competitors.

    You might be surprised at just how fast an agreement can be reached.
  • stinkyreeferstinkyreefer Member Posts: 5
    "The standard warranty on the Corolla is 3/36 bumper to bumper, 5/60 powertrain. Honda is the same now, only recently matching Toyota's warranty. Only Hyundai/Kia have better"
    This is not true. Mazda's standard warranty on the 06 models is 4yrs/50k miles. I think this extra year or 12k miles would reduce TCO dramatically, if endums would include it on their comparisons.
  • beantownbeantown Member Posts: 228
    I think this extra year or 12k miles would reduce TCO dramatically, if endums would include it on their comparisons.

    Why? How many things do you think will really go wrong with these cars between years 3 and 4? 99% of these cars will have nothing but routine service done to them during that time (and those costs are not included in the extra year of the warranty, so they won't change the true cost of ownership).
  • mdaffronmdaffron Member Posts: 4,421
    I don't know where you got your mpg figures from, but my 2005 Mazda3 hatchback (5-speed, the only way to buy one) has averaged 27 mpg city, 33-34 highway for a year and a half and 25,000 miles. And that's while driving like a maniac. Still beats your 28-30 Maxima numbers.

    Meade
  • philphilphilphil Member Posts: 15
    Thanks Marc, I knew it couldn't have been a Brooklyn dealer.

    Phil
  • dc_driverdc_driver Member Posts: 712
    Nube,

    How are you getting 28-30mpg on a 1990 Maxima (6cyl)? I think that engine is rated 19(city)-26(highway).

    I drove the same cars you mentioned in your comparison and while some of the Honda dealers in my area are snobbish, others are not (I purchased a Honda Odyssey in April 06). I thought I was all set (before I drove the 3) to buy an 06 Civic in June but I found that local dealers had little inventory and were not willing to budge much off MSRP.

    I then drove the Mazda3 back-to-back against the Civic and really liked the 3 better. I did not like the sloping windshield or the dashboard layout of the Civic. I also never try to buy a first model year release (or new major release) of a car. Honda is Honda, but I do not like being the guinea pig. I felt that the 3 had more responsive handling, braking and was much more fun to drive. The interior was more to my liking and I was able to get a lot more car for my money. I also wanted a manual and there were zero Civic manuals in the area for me to test drive (let alone buy). I was a little surprised when the Honda dealer I bought my Odyssey two months before would not go more than a few hundred under MSRP. But, it all comes down to supply and demand I guess :)

    As for the Corolla.. Well, it is a solid car that is tried, true, and tested.. But it was not for me. It just felt a little too vanilla and the 3 felt like it drove circles around the Corolla..

    To date, I have had zero issues or complaints with my 3i Touring and would recommend it to anybody.. I am getting close to 27mpg in about 90-95% city driving (heavy stop and go). For comparison sake, my 2002 Nissan Altima (6cyl) averaged 19mpg in similar driving and my Mazda Tribute (6cyl, AWD) averaged 16mpg...
  • beantownbeantown Member Posts: 228
    How are you getting 28-30mpg on a 1990 Maxima (6cyl)? I think that engine is rated 19(city)-26(highway).

    I just love the EPA tests...for me, they are pretty much useless. In my experience with older models (pre-2000 cars), the published numbers seem to underestimate the car's ability; whereas anything made in the last 5-7 years receive estimates that overestimate FE significantly unless you REALLY baby the car.

    My 1997 Corolla (3 speed, auto tranny) is rated at 24 city and 29 highway, but I can't remember ever getting less than 29 mpg off tanks with up to 90% city driving. And I can easily get 35 mpg in all highway driving if I keep it under 80mph.

    I strongly believe that manufacturers nowadays have studied the EPA tests and know how to design cars that perform incredibly in these tests, but don't quite perform as well in the real world (FE-wise). In the past, I think they built cars to do better in the real world, while not concerning themselves so much with the EPA tests.
  • chiefjojochiefjojo Member Posts: 39
    In my experience with older models (pre-2000 cars), the published numbers seem to underestimate the car's ability; whereas anything made in the last 5-7 years receive estimates that overestimate FE significantly unless you REALLY baby the car.

    I'm glad you noticed that too. I used to have a '93 Mazda MX6 V6... by then end when i traded it in, it had 180k miles with an EPA hwy rating of 26mpg, but I usually got 27 or 28 on the hwy, and that was on a 9-10 year old car.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    yes but your 93 car had less safety and less luxury featutres and weigthed hundreds of pounds less.

    you see 1993 was thirteen ( 13 ) years ago and they have made dramatic improvements since then.
  • beantownbeantown Member Posts: 228
    yes but your 93 car had less safety and less luxury featutres and weigthed hundreds of pounds less.

    you see 1993 was thirteen ( 13 ) years ago and they have made dramatic improvements since then.


    What does any of this have to do with how the newer cars are performing compared to their older counterparts when it comes to hitting the projected EPA numbers? Nothing.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    WEIGHT
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    I think you are both right.

    As manufacturers add components and features they tend to make vehicles heavier resulting in lower fuel efficiency.

    But there has also been controversy about how the EPA rates vehicles. Most drivers don't achieve the EPA ratings because the norms are not developed using real driving conditions. Some have speculated that the EPA is rating vehicles as being more fuel efficient than they are in reality in order to get auto manufacturers off the hook. If the numbers that most vehicles get were shown on the EPA sticker, many drivers would be aghast. Some would even wonder how are vehicles like Armadas, Hummers, Yukons allowed on the road considering the damage they do to the environment. Instead, vehicles are tested in artifical conditions resulting in unrealistic numbers. I have found Consumer Reports projected fuel economy numbers more accurate; they routinely downgrade the EPA ratings by 20% or more. For example, when the EPA rates your vehicle at 30 mpg it's likely closer to 24 mpg.
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    I've had my 06 ex civic for almost ten months now and i'm loving every minute of it. I too considered mazda and toyotas offerings but to be honest i didn't feel like they were offering anything as interesting or innovative as honda. Honda pushes the envelope, toyota stays bland, mazda does what already has been done, just better. Alot of stuff posted on the internet seems to be very negative about the civic, probably because everyone who owns one is out driving it and loving it. Think about it: it has a very unorthodox dash, not the most power in its class and it is not the cheapest. Does that stop if from being consumer reports top rated sedan? No. Does that stop people from purchasing it? No. A lady was trading in her mazda 3s sedan the day i bought my civic. How ironic. I don't think the 3 is a bad car at all. I just think it isn't amazing. The handling this and the handling that. The handling my nuts. My civic has AWESOME handling and that is no overstatement. Plus it rides on 16 inch wheels and has all season tires on it. The mazda comes off as a little cheesy to me sometimes. Too overly sporty for its own good. My car is sporty too, and it give me 29 miles in the city and 38 on the highway on average! (my fiance lives 2 1/2 miles away from we and we see eachother every weekend so mileage was a very important factor when purchasing my vehicle.) I think more civic owners need to speak about how wonderful their cars are. Everyone i know who has seen my car always compliments me on it. And i just cant justify a 2.3 liter engine that gets v-6 gas mileage. And the corolla? Bland at best. The s is better and although i don't hate it i dont love it. Man it has a loud engine!! Civic all way man. Civic civic civic. Just remember that and you will fare well.
  • chiefjojochiefjojo Member Posts: 39
    Weight is an independent variable, since the EPA tests the same car as the public drives (same weight)... therefore the estimated numbers should be similar to the real-world numbers.

    I'm talking about the actual highway mileage that my 9 year old car got compared to the EPA hwy estimate for THAT CAR, not comparing it with newer cars. I routinely achieved better than EPA numbers with a 180k mile/9 year old car that burned oil, which blew my mind at the time.

    Today, cars rarely achieve their EPA estimates in the real world for whatever reason.
  • funpgfunpg Member Posts: 3
    As a former 96 Accord owner, I am a great admirer of Honda and the Civic (the style of the coupe knocks my socks off!), but got a great deal on a Mazda3 S hatchback. It is loaded with content, looks great, and is a blast to drive. In a perfect world, I would have bought both and had the daily choice of What-To-Drive? I agree with previous comments that the Mazda is a little edgy, not as refined a ride as a Honda and I wouldn't mind better mileage (or a larger tank - seems like I am always filling it up!). Ain't life great? :)
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    I think all the car companies have studied the EPA test and do their best to show higher numbers ON THE TEST. Best example of this would be the hybrids. EPA says they get 60 MPH (or whatever) but in the real world they don't even come close.

    The EPA is after all a government agency - what do you expect?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I think all the car companies have studied the EPA test and do their best to show higher numbers ON THE TEST. Best example of this would be the hybrids. EPA says they get 60 MPH (or whatever) but in the real world they don't even come close.

    Then Honda sure didn't try very hard... I get well over EPA estimates on trips in my Accord traveling at 75 MPH...I've even gotten 39.96 MPG once and average around 38 MPG at that speed (75)(it stickers at 34 MPG)
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    So in your opinion the car companies (at least Honda) sand bag the EPA results so that cars actually get MORE MPG? Or maybe they completely ignore the detailed rules and methods of the EPA and just make cars the best way they can.

    I guess anything is possible -

    I normally get close to the EPA city rating as an overall combined average. I may start out a trip driving close to the speed limit - but after a while end up following traffic which is normally around 80 MPH - that does hurt MPG. I hate it when I am cruising along at 65 MPH (speed limit) and have a steady stream of cars passing me on the left - which would not be that bad - except I am always getting caught behind someone going 55 in the right lane and because of the constant stream of passing cars I can't (safely) get around the guy doing 55. It almost seems safer to go 80 MPH and just stay in the normal flow of traffic.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Nah, i don't think that car companies particularly design a car around or for EPA tests, but that's just my opinion...

    The reason I stay at 75 MPH is that the car is revving high enough to never have to downshift in hills, but low enough that it is still relatively efficient (2,500 RPM).

    I made the same trip at 68 MPH (less than 2,300 RPM) and the car had to downshift on a lot more hills, making my economy actually lower than when I went 75 MPH.
  • archmikusarchmikus Member Posts: 3
    FWIW, I got an overall average of 30-31 mpg on my 2005 Mazda3 5 speed hatch. This includes about 50% highway, 50% city driving over the course of an entire year. Sure the Civic gets better mileage, but I feel that the M3 is so much more fun to drive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Honda hater... in fact, I love Hondas. You can't go wrong with them! But for the money, I'm willing to sacrifice a little MPG in return for a more exciting driving experience.
This discussion has been closed.