Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
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
Personally, I would say the 3 is several substantial notches ahead of the civic when it comes to "sportiness". In fact, in my driving, I would say the 3 is very fun to drive while the civic is pretty bland. The civic isnt a mush-mobile, but it's not very entertaining. I also find the 3 gives up little in terms of comfort compared to the civic (eg. I find the seats to be more supportive in the 3 and ride is not overly harsh).
But yea, the "sportiness" or w/e you want to call it is really the one area where the 3 really shines over the civic. If it's not noticeable, then the only drawbacks to the civic may be a weaker engine and styling (which is subjective).
Of course, the 3 gives up little to the civic in every other category including fuel consumption, comfort, build quality, reliability, resale value... etc. The civic wins in those, but not by a substantial amount. That's the why the 3 has been getting so much praise here in the States. It has the "fun factor" without losing too much of everything else.
The Sandman
The civic is just as fun to thrash around. I can appreciate a fine handling car trust me. I've driven both vehicles extensively and there was nothing that i could do in the 3 that i couldn't do with the civic. And trust me i thrashed them about quite a bit. Is the 3 marginally better? Yes it is. Marginally. So marginally in fact that after you factor in fuel ecomomy and resale value, getting the 3 (to me) for sporting abilities doesn't make much sense. Get a true enthusiast car. The civic si could eat the 3 for lunch in the handling dept. and thier power and mileage figures are about the same.
I think the 3 is a very nice car, and i actually considered it very strongly at one point esp. the hatch version. But i personally adore the way the new civic looks, that and its horspower to engine size ratio, silky smooth transmission, outstanding fuel ecomomy and great dash layout made it the winner in my book. Do i bash anyone for having a 3? No but it certainly is not so much sportier that it makes the civic pale. Sandman you should toss your civic around...trust me its up to the task.
The handling is better then "marginal" much better. Edmunds slalom test showed the Mazda3 went through it at 69mph(quicker then the WRX, I know, hard to believe) and the Civic was 64.6. The Mazda3 is also 1 second quicker 0-60 and .8 in the quarter mile. Also, fuel economy, according to CR, is only 29-30mpg highway in the Civic . Resale value is the same.
How so? The most recent comparison places the Mazda 3 and Honda Civic against each other. While I think the 3 is a very nice car, I think you have overexaggerated some test numbers based on the Motor Trend article I read and have sitting in front of me now.
Honda Civic LX - $17,555:
33 MPG
0-60 in 7.7 seconds
Quarter Mile in 16.1 @ 87 MPH
Top Speed 125 MPH
Lane Change 64.6 MPH
Mazda 3s Touring - $18,885
27 MPG
0-60 in 7.3 seconds
Quarter Mile in 15.8 @ 88 MPH
Top Speed 118 MPH
Lane Change 66.3 MPH
So, for an extra 6 MPG, you give up .4 seconds to 60 MPH, less than that in the quarter mile, and some extra grip.
It's not a runaway, aviboy. If fuel economy is at all in consideration, the Civic may just top people's list. If max sport tops your list, then the 3 should be up your alley.
I agree with the milage too; something i forgot to include in my post to avi: according to mt they averaged 6 mpg more; edmunds observed around seven. That is a big deal. I think, though, that the numbers you posted grad are for mt cars; my auto ex would never make it to sixty in under eight seconds. Mid nines and high eights at best but never that fast.
These were MT cars. When we are talking things like tenths of a second in acceleration, nobody is going to be able to notice much of a difference. More noticeable would be throttle response, which is just a matter of how it is programmed. The Corolla I used to drive (my ex-GFs) was plenty quick, but around town it felt like it could be outrun by an iceberg because the throttle tip-in was so soft.
More impressive on Mazda's behalf is braking, that is the only test where it showed a significant advantage on the Civic, and again, this is likely largely due to its smaller, less-sporty tires. Not an excuse, just the reason.
I over exaggerated nothing, read my post again, and you will see "according to Edmunds...." In which they did a comparo between the 06 Civic and 06 Mazda3.
Also, you will see my fuel estimate came directly from CR "real world" results, not Motor Trend. I did not make up anything I posted, I got them directly from editors who assessed these vehicles.
We can go back and forth all day on who wrote what, how fast each car is and get different numbers every time. I will agree that if you are looking for fuel economy as your #1 requirement, buy the Honda, if it is sportyness you are looking for, buy the Mazda.
We'll leave it there.
My folks just got a 2007 Civic EX (Atomic Blue) sedan. They love it. I personally like it a lot (a friend of mine has an electric blue Mazda 3 2.3 sedan) which I also like, but the tire noise in that car is just unreal! I was really surprised at how loud the tires were. The engine isn't so loud, and is a little quicker than the Civic's, but Mazda needs to take some of the road noise away, because it was quite draining to ride in it when we went to PCB Florida over the summer.
To me, the Mazda and Civic are both great cars, both of which I'd choose LONG before getting a Corolla (which feels feeble in comparison - my GFs had LOADS of rattles by 27,000 miles too, not something I expected in a Toyota).
I decided to buy a Corolla and feel I got a very good deal on it. But now I am having regrets. I know there is nothing I can do because I own the car, but I was wondering if anyone out there might ease my mind and tell me I made a good decision or just tell me that I didn’t.
The other two cars I had thought about were the Honda Civic and the Mazda 3 Hatchback. I scratched the Honda Civic due to cost without anything else that I liked or needed above the Corolla. I don’t really need any of the extra features that the Mazda 3 5-door offers. I just liked the fact that it was a hatchback. I scratched that car too – due to cost, fuel efficiency, and although has gotten great reviews, I wasn’t sure on the long term reliability. The Corolla has an outstanding track record
However, now I find myself regretting my decision and almost thinking about trading it in for a new Mazda 3 hatchback. First, I have read that the Corolla doesn’t actually get as good of gas mileage as it claims to (EPA rating = 29/38). Anyone else? Second, I concur the steering wheel position to leg position is a bit off, but I have very long legs (now getting use to the steering wheel position – its not too bad). And its not as sporty as the Mazda 3, although I don’t need this and I really like the hatchback but the cost was almost $5,000 more than the Corolla (not much – but still ¼ of the total cost).
What I got – a ’07 Corolla LE – loaded, with heated leather seats, and alarm (remember my last car was stolen), remote starter, and extended 7 year warranty for $20,000.
I would love to hear your thoughts on my purchase and either I may walk away feeling as though I made a good investment all things considered or feeling like an idiot and losing a few grand when I trade it in at the Mazda dealer. Any thoughts?
Thanks -
That being said, you might check out the Corolla Prices Paid & Buying Experience Forum and check out the deals other shoppers are getting.
The EPA ratings on the car are pretty accurate. My ex-girlfriend drove like a bat-out-of-hell, and still averaged 31 MPG in her commute to school in rush hour. I drive much more calmly, and got 37 MPG on a day trip to Huntsville (110 miles each way from here in Bham - that included lots of driving around town too). That was with A/C, three people in the car, and me driving at 80 MPH, plus the 50 or 60 miles we spent on the side-streets. Many people in the Corolla MPG Forum have gotten well above EPA averages when they drive modestly.
Her car has been very reliable, just has some rattles coming from the dome light. It rides the best out of the three in this forum. I wouldn't trade it in if the car is comfortable to you. If you like to drive cars into the ground, this one will take awhile, as they have a good reliability reputation, and will probably take you as far as your old Civic did.
Quick question; is that $20,000 deal including everything (tax, title, license, add-ons, fees...)? If so, the deal doesn't seem as bad. Not sure you couldn't have done somewhat better, but the car shouldn't disappoint you for what it promises, especially if it has all the features you were looking for.
so you like the Corolla, I was basically just looking for a good car to get me where ever i need to go that i can drive for the next 7 -10 years with minimal and i mean minimal problems..... the problem comes when all of a sudden i say well if I spent X why not spend $5,000 more and get X.
I think I would buy my old car back from the person that stole my car $2,000.
I'm not sure where people buy cars.... mid 17,000 for a Civic EX sedna loaded - maybe without all the other fees. what blue book tells you and a delaer i believe to be very different.
An no, $17,280 includes Tax, Title, License, Mudguards, and all dealer fees.
$14,800 is aggressive, but it becomes less-so with all the add-ons. I wonder for how long/many miles is the warranty, and what was its price? The remote start/alarm price?
7 year 75,000 miles - Full coverage warranty ~ 1,300 - best part if you don't use it they give you your $$$ back!!!!
heated leather seats = $1800 (My folks are a little on the goofy side - so they paid for the leather seats and alarm - you know i live in the big bad city!)taxes are...well taxed in Chi-town
when it comes to buying a car - i wish i was a guy..
so what's you opinion on the Mazda 3- hatchback (reliability?)
I'm going to say that I don't have enough info to really comment, although they seem to be decent little cars. I have a friend with one and it is still solid after 48,000 miles (its a 2004). A recent long term test I read (either in Motor Trend or in Car and Driver, I subscribe to both and can't find the issue at the moment) really loved the car, but again, it cost $19,xxx before they added fees, tax, title, etc... Probably a few thousand more than your Corolla if you equipped them both with leather and heated seats.
It isn't the newest model or the sportiest looking but it serves it purpose. I long ago got over the phase in life when you feel that you have to have that just released model or the ultra sporty looking vehicle. You bought a quality vehicle that should give you many years of trouble free driving.
It's simply the most reliable, inexpensive to own & operate, car out there.
My mom has an '05. I drove a '91 in college until 150k miles, then my sister drove it in college to 200k miles. Got rid of it because it had no airbags, but otherwise there was nothing wrong with it.
The current model could use a telescoping steering wheel. But as you mentioned, people get used to the driving position.
My current car is a 2002 Camry w/ 110k miles, 0 problems. There's a reason why Toyota has the highest perceived quality in the business... because they DO.
I might agree with you about reliability, however, Toyota is now the recall king in the industry. Also, with the recent Avalon/Camry transmission issues I have to say they may have taken a step back. Also, you mentioned "quality". The Corolla/Matrix are the noisiest/rattiest vehicles in their segment. That is not quality. They have a feel that lacks refinement.
I disagree. I believe the "transmission issues" are overstated and the Camry along with the Honda Accord are still on top of the heap. The Mazda6 has had its fair share of problems as noted in Consumer Reports; only the 4 cylinder is recommended. In my opinion, the Mazda6 used to be the style king of the bunch, but Toyota has delivered on that front also. Kudos to Toyota for addressing the bland criticism and delivering a handsome design.
I predict that in spite of the "issues", the Camry will still share the throne with the Accord. As good as the Mazda6 is, it is definitely not in the same ballpark as these major leaguers.
You can disagree, but, there are thousands of posts here at Edmunds that say other wise.....
The Mazda6 has had its fair share of problems as noted in Consumer Reports; only the 4 cylinder is recommended
Never said it did not. However, the Mazda6 is not part of this discussion. I brought only made reference the Avalon/Camry part in rebuttal to the previous posters remark of Toyota being near perfect.
Nor is the Camry, Avalon, Accord, etc....
Let's all move on and leave the CamCord and 6 in the Midsize Sedans Discussion Board, shall we?
Exactly!
They straight said the Corolla was fun to drive but it's not for Lazy Drivers!!!! and Most American's are Very lazy drivers, and believe me there's a lot of shifting going on in the XRS, nothing sounds better than dropping it from 6th to 3rd gear on the Fwy
The '07 Corolla is not offered as an XRS model. Toyota killed it in '06.
Most buyers of $16k-$19k cars aren't racers or speed demons. They want a compromise of capable handling, comfortable ride, safe power/braking, safety features, and interior luxury, with economy as a bonus. I meant the new Corolla should liven up the conversation, not necessarily a driver's pulse.
The new civic would hold up fairly well against a corolla xrs. The si would 'destroy' it. :P
Well, the XRS is no longer made, and the Mazda3 in that comparo was an automatic, not manual like the others. The XRS also had a solid rear axle, I do not know how it handled better. I have never seen anything anywhere else that a Corolla handled better then a Civic or Mazda3.
Engine wise, the mazda3 has my vote, its the biggest and hence has the best torque to it, but it does have lower mpg (I don't care what ads say theres no way a larger pistoned combustion engine can have lower mpg than a smaller one). Too bad under hard revving the engine sorta just simmers down, while the civic revs nicely and evenly. The corolla just makes alot of noise; I had 3 other sit in the car w/ me for all 3 cars and the corolla did the worst at accelerating. (all were manual) Even when holding the low gears the car would not go, even the civic and mazda3 went along nicely. FYI: the corolla has 4 doors, but those are really just for looks, the car really does struggle when you put 4 people in it. This is probably why most ppl complain about not getting the advertised mileage on their corollas b/c they are constantly pushing the engine just to keep up w/ traffic.
Interior the mazda3 looks nice and all, but it really is kinda tacky. The plastic parts seem cheaper when compared to the civic and corolla, but the sound for all three cars were pretty good. The seats for the mazda3 had a somewhat wannabe racey feel in that they grip your body, but comfortably, which is not something I'm used, 'racing' seats aren't supposed to be THAT comfy. Also the mazda3's seat adjustment used the turning knob thingies. I sat only in the driver's seat so interior room I can't say much, I'm not some 7 ft tall monster so I can't say much about interior head/leg room. The gauges for all the cars are sufficient, all I need to do is be able to see them, but if you want sporty the mazda3 and corollaS has decent gauges, while the civic has innovative/quirky gauges. The instrument panel is easy to use on all cars though I'm not sure if it was me, but the mazda3 had a bit too many buttons for my taste, while the civic looks weird w/ the empty panel where the GPS is supposed to be.
In the handling dept. the mazda3 is very good for zipping around traffic, the steering is quick and responsive, though feedback is quite close to nill. On freeways this could get annoying, during my test drive it was kind of windy and I had to constantly readjust the steering against winds and road bumps. The civic and corolla feel less nimble, but on the freeway they make for easier drives. All cars handle about the same to me under normal driving conditions, but under hard cornering the mazda3's engine showed its draw back in having the heaviest engine of the 3 cars. But nobody is going to be driving any of these cars hard... right? You can go try it on your own I personally preferred civic in this dept.
Price wise the cars were off by $1000 or so, and that didn't bug me horribly. Honda and Toyota's reliability are pretty solid in my book, but I've had a couple of bad experiences w/ mazdas in the past, although you do get a bit more w/ the mazda3 for the price, but that just tells me something about quality in the car.
Looks is a personal preference hence I will stay off the subject. W/ these cars what I tend to see are people either liking it, or hating it.
What do you currently drive?
How important is fuel economy in your choice?
How long did you spend test driving each car?
Did you use a similar "track"?
had a couple of bad experiences w/ mazdas
Which Mazdas had issues?
you do get a bit more w/ the mazda3 for the price, but that just tells me something about quality in the car.
Do you mean that the quality is related to the price (i.e. higher price equals higher quality)?
My brother was going to college so of course I kept fuel economy in mind, I even noted that the mazda3 despite having better torque would yield lower mpg's. MPG really does depend on the driver, the corolla boasts higher mpg ratings than the civic, but if you were to drive the corolla so that it would keep up w/ the civic under normal driving conditions, then the numbers would be about the same. I don't go by the number provided online or what not, I go by my own judgment based how the cars run, so I can't really give you numbers.
Each car was driven for about 20 mins, some my friends own so I get to see how they're doing as well after 3k miles. All the dealers were in the same area so I took the same course both freeway and city for all 3. I did hill, flat, curves, straight, turn radius, freeway back and forth.
Mazda MPV minivan, light weight truck, and forgot my friends car mx-3 or something like that, its been a while since I've seen him. The Protege I didn't even have to take a look at and it went through a mass recall from what I hear (source is from 3 friends that each own one either directly or through family).
The interior trim of the mazda3 gives you the whole metallic-y trim, console comes w/ more features, but the plastic covering it wasn't too great. The seats were firmer in the mazda3, but the material didn't seem as great as the corolla or civic. So you get more stuff for the buck, but quality wise its not really that much more.
Hope I answered all your questions sufficiently.
Sounds like you give the test cars a good ride that should show off some of their strengths and weaknesses. Some drivers dismiss cars without test driving them.
The 323/Protege/Mazda3 is probably Mazda's most popular and long running vehicle line. I've never heard of a recall since 2002 for the Protege/Mazda3. Consumer Reports continues to rate its reliability as top notch.
Q - how long do you need to own a new car to get your moneys worth? (Loaded Q - I know)
Winter fuel is known for being a mixture which lowers mileage, sometimes by 5-10%. I've recently lost 2 MPG average in my Accord (well, since Nov.). Are you warming up the car extra than you did when you first bought it? Driving a little harder since break-in?
To your second question, I'd say:
When your car starts costing more to keep running than another new car payment would, I'd say yours is used up. Of course, it is up to you to decide when before this occurs you will sell/trade it in. My grandfather drove his brand new Civic Wagon (a 1987 model) until it had 255,000 miles, and the A/C died. He sold it for $1,000 and bought a 3-year old pickup with low miles. If anyone got his money's worth from a new car, it was him.
If you purchased the car and own it, then you would try to keep it as long as possible to spread the cost of the car over a long period. The single largest cost of a new car is its depreciation (especially in its first year where many cars typically lose 15% to 20% of their value). For that reason alone, it does not make sense to me to sell a car before it is four or five years old. Another way of looking at it, the money you save not paying for a new car is earning interest in the bank. The car industry, of course, would prefer that we buy new cars as frequently as possible.
To keep a car for this period (four years or more) is directly related to its long term reliability. That's one reason I think one could argue that Japanese cars are cheaper than American and European cars. And Corollas are great in that they hold their value especially well.