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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
Even the Accord has a single height adjustment until you get to the full power seat.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
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.
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
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!
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).
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.
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=436690
Here:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=109257
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.
thanks.
slaterac.
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.
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
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!!
Where in the new York area are you talking about. I'm in Brooklyn.
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
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.
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.
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).
Meade
Phil
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...
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.
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.
you see 1993 was thirteen ( 13 ) years ago and they have made dramatic improvements since then.
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.
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.
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.
The EPA is after all a government agency - what do you expect?
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)
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.
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.