2014 Mazda MAZDA3 S Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

2014 Mazda MAZDA3 S Long-Term Road Test

Going with the larger four-cylinder engine in the Mazda 3 means slightly decreased mileage, but the performance payoff is worth it.

Read the full story here

barich1

I'm sad that the blue engine cover is gone in the 2014. Must have cost an extra $0.50.

I think I'd get the 2.0. I have it in my 2013 and it's powerful enough. And the 2014 is lighter and has more low-end torque thanks to the 4-2-1 exhaust manifold they couldn't fit in the 2012-13.

bassrockerx

four grand for 30 horsepower is a ripoff

zimtheinvader

I agree with bassrockerx, it is crazy that they make the bottom 2.5 engine model basically a step up in trims from the top of the line 2.0 engine model. I don't necessarily want all the extras you get from going up over the i-Grand Touring model. I just want the bigger engine.

emajor

This is a $26K compact car, minimum, when equipped with this engine. Unless you really wanted all the options that Mazda bundles with the 2.5, it represents a pretty bad deal in my book. I'll stick with the 2.0.

If I had $26K I was willing to put into a compact hatch, I'm getting a GTI.

agentorange

Bigger engine for me every time. Living in the desert SW means you run the A/C 8-9 months of the year and much of the area is above 4000' elevation. That's a lot of load for the small engine, especially given the weight of so-called small cars these days.

agentorange

WTF!!! Why does my logion not work on the SLP thread. What are you doing, Edmunds?

vvk

Interestingly, European reviews generally prefer the 2.0l, saying it is smoother, quieter and revs more eagerly... I suspect this would make a more noticeable difference with manual transmission.

mlin32_

Actually, the Europeans prefer the 2,2 litre diesel. The 2,5 litre petrol is offered in Australia but not Europe, where many countries tax based on displacement. There is a 1,5 litre petrol available in Europe though.

guy1974

Those criticizing the extra cost forget that the S Touring has more equipment than the i GT. Mazda is not forcing anyone to get the upgraded engine, especially since the base i engine has more power than the Civic, Corolla, Cruze and many other cars whilst still weighing at the bottom of the class.

vvk

mlin32, I am basing my comment on 2.5 offered in other Mazda models, such as Mazda6. There are countries in Europe that do not prefer the diesel. Not in Western Europe, obviously.

fordson1

Edmunds certainly does have its favorites...they won't stop ragging on the CLA250 because it's missing its EPA combined rating by 2.8 mpg. This Mazda 3 is missing its EPA combined rating by 3.1 mpg, and they're like, "oh, we just need to drive it slower." I understand the current fashion is to criticize turbo engines for not getting their rated fuel economy, but when a NA engine misses by this much, everybody starts making excuses.

quadricycle

@fordson1: While I do agree with you about rationalizing mpg's, I hardly think that it is because of an anti forced induction conspiracy. This is why a spreadsheet with every car's fuel economy is so much better. No rationalization, no explanation. Just t

sharpend

They jack up the price so much for the 2.5L Mazda3 that it costs about the same as a Madza6. Nuts.

zimtheinvader

guy1974, I'm not forgetting it at all; that is the focus of my post. I don't want that 'content'. I just want the engine. I don't care if it has more power than the other cars on the list. They built a 'drivers car' and then dangled the good engine out on a line saying "but if you want this you gotta get gizmos!"