creakid1 "New S40/V50" Feb 22, 2004 6:52am & they're all FWD Euro models, including 5-sp & 6-sp manual, w/ Euro plates & convex driver-side mirror. It's one hell of a "plush Mazda3"!
"It's far from the horrible G35. Even Car&Driver drivers found the RWD power oversteer of the G35(w/ sport suspension) so scary(even on familiar dry roads!) when combined w/ the over-sensitive steering that they never bothered to shut off the traction control again!(see p86, Oct '02)"
Isn't it amazing that the G35 is so horrible and yet C&D put it on the 10 best list again? If the car is so unsafe that it can't be driven without the stability control, you'd think that it wouldn't be on the list. Stability control should be an additional safety measure, not a substitute for learning how to drive properly, IMO. I guess I'm stuck in the old school where you learned the cars limits and your own.
The definition of "exciting" is having your ABS system fail on an icy road. I had this happen on one of my vehicles. (not the Mazda!) Of course you'd THINK it would just revert back to regular brakes, but no..... that would be too easy! When I hit the brakes, it actually turned on for a second, pulsed the brakes a few times, then failed and kicked itself back to regular brakes, then turned on again for a second, and then off, on, off, etc., etc... All in all, I managed to sail through a (thankfully empty) intersection with hardly any braking power at all. I figure it actually increased my braking distance by 3 to 4 times. (which in a 4500 pound car was already considerable.) Luckily, I realized what it was doing and just applied gentle, constant pressure to the pedal, brought the car gently down to a slow, safe speed and hobbled home. Anyway the point is, these advanced safety systems (ABS, DSC, TC, etc) should never be a replacement for driving skill -- they make cars safer but at the risk of making the drivers less proficient.
<Anyway the point is, these advanced safety systems (ABS, DSC, TC, etc) should never be a replacement for driving skill -- they make cars safer but at the risk of making the drivers less proficient.>
I couldn't agree more with your point. I hear so many people talk about how much better of a driver they will be with these systems in place. I translate that into people driving beyond their limits and sometimes the cars! Not we need on the road today.
in some countries, drivers are required to drive stick in order to get their driver's license issued. Knowing how to drive w/o ABS or stability control should be required, including pumping brakes, & countersteer(& even apply-throttle on FWD cars) to correct fishtail.
That's why you should turn off the stability control & practice on an open area such as empty parking lots when the road is wet.
"Isn't it amazing that the G35 is so horrible and yet C&D put it on the 10 best list again? If the car is so unsafe that it can't be driven without the stability control, you'd think that it wouldn't be on the list."
Even when they ranked it 1st place ahead of the much-weaker-engine 325i in the March '04 issue, they still found
1) its sport suspension/tires MUCH less comfortable than the 325i's already-firm (lowered than std)sport suspension/tires over rippled surfaces.
2)"At the track the G35 demonstrated a willingness to rotate that was regard as handy by some and a little DISCONCERTING by others but was only evident with the dynamic-control switched off. Regular owners would likely LEAVE THAT ON."
That's why all G35's got the stability control std.
C&D drivers are not CR drivers. At least they weren't complaining about the G35 w/ the traction or stability control switched on. & they didn't even mention about the not-so-predictable oversteer when lift off as mentioned by CR, which tested the one w/o sport suspension/tires.
I read the C&D and CR articles about the G35. I didn't come away with the thought that the car was dangerous after reading C&D, CR on the other hand seemed to make it more of an issue, yet they still recommend the car. The car is not safe to drive without stability control? To me this is absurd. The Mazda3 needing stability control to be safe to drive? Again, I find this absolutely absurd. Remember the Porsche 911's and turbo Carrera's back in the mid 70's and how they were noted for easily swapping ends if you lifted off in a hard corner? And now the G35 and Mazda3 can't be driven without stability control? It just doesn't add up, IMO.
"The car is not safe to drive without stability control? To me this is absurd. The Mazda3 needing stability control to be safe to drive? Again, I find this absolutely absurd. Remember the Porsche 911's and turbo Carrera's back in the mid 70's and how they were noted for easily swapping ends if you lifted off in a hard corner? And now the G35 and Mazda3 can't be driven without stability control? It just doesn't add up, IMO."
Neither did cars have airbags back then. We're talking about TODAY'S standard here.
At least the Mazda3 is still much safer than the G35 to handle at the limit when not using the stability control.
The G35 is still recommendable 'cause the stability control is std. Not like some tipping SUVs that can't be cured, including the BMW X5, which wasn't recommendable due to the reliability alone.
By the way, according to the TV news last night, the American Focus is now twice as reliable as the BMW 7-series, eventhough that's not saying much.
The Mazda3 is available w/ DSC all over the world except us who think small cars have to be cheaper than the Camry, which offers optional stability control.
There was an article issued from the National Hwy Safety(or something like that) someone posted in the Mazda3 thread many months ago. It sez research has shown the stability program saves lives many times more than airbags.
The government might as well require all cars to be equipped w/ stability control std, while make the air bags(just bunch bags full of air! ;-) ) optional to keep the price down. By the way, the VW Passat only charges $280 for the stability upgrade from the std traction control.
I highly recommend the DSC for the Mazda3 'cause, unlike some numb-steering boring cars, this car is so much fun driving at the limit that you'll be spoiled to go that fast frequently, & you will need to use the DSC someday or more often, unlike the expensive airbags that will probably never be used.
How can the stability of a high torque rear wheel drive car with both more weight and less of a forward weight bias have any bearing on a discussion of oversteer in a Mazda 3. That is a completely different animal. I have close to 3500 km behind the wheel of a 3 hatch, and have yet to encounter any misbehaviour by the back end. I would welcome the addition of DSC along with traction control on this car for that 1 in a million chance they might save my life, but neither system is in any way required. I'm sure this car can generate some valid complaints, but instability is not one of them.
I'd like to see the article that claims stability control saves more lives than airbags, considering the number of cars equipped with airbags vs stability control. And stability control won't do much when someone crosses the center line unexpectedly and hits you head on, where the airbags may save your life. Ditto for a side collision. Show me. I certainly agree that stability control is a great safety feature. But it may also give many drivers a false sense of security just like 4 wheel drive does. I live in New England and I see plenty of idiots driving much too fast in snowy/icy road conditions. I've seen a lot of SUV's off the road over the years. False sense of security. It would be great if more people actually learned how to drive properly, or better yet, actually looked at the road and paid attention instead of talking on their cell phones, etc etc.
I read that Mazada will be using the 3 at the Rev it Up competion this year. I hope to attend the Boston event. It sounds like a good opportunity to put the 3 thru its paces. Has anyone here ever been to one of these events?
I'm no big proponent of traction control, but I think single-vehicle accidents cause the majority of road fatalities. Obviously those generally involve loss of control, so it's easy to decide that traction control would reduce that number.
One can only have so much faith in people actually driving well.
I didn't do to badly, considering my car died one week ago today and I wasn't ready to buy a new $22k car for 6 months...at least I thought. But in a week I managed to re-arrange my finances, get approved from the bank for a loan, evaluate used alternatives (namely none, when it comes down to it), and finally drive out to Middletown, NY and arrange a purchase of a brand new Mazda3 5 door! Right now they're working on locating one to my specifications, but they said that shouldn't be a problem. Speccing it out with the CD Changer/Moonroof package, ABS/Airbag package, Auto tranny, and Xenon/Tire Pressure package...and they're adding in the in-dash MP3 player, for under 22k out the door. I just don't know what color it will be yet...they're looking for (In this order) Orange, The two blues, red, or black (and a black one they already DID locate...but I prefer one of the other colors). The guy there said they shouldn't have much trouble finding a red one, at the very least, so I'm sure the cops will love me.
I'm SOO happy...I'll finally have my own set of wheels again, after driving a loaner that I hate for a week. Incidentally, it's also my FIRST BRAND NEW CAR, thereby making me all the happier.
The specs you want are exactly what I got - in winning blue. I originally did not want the xenon/TPMS, only because I didn't want to add more $ to all the extras I was already getting and I didn't feel I was worthy of the xenons (it was my first new car purchase, also). My dealer did a search for red and w. blue and told me not one existed the way I wanted in the state of TX. I didn't really believe them because I located 2 red ones within 150 miles on the Mazdausa website. But who knows? Maybe they had already been sold but hadn't been taken off the website inventory yet. Anyway, I was about to purchase a titanium gray one off their lot, got cold feet at the last second, and was offered the blue one w/ the xenon at only $100 more than the gray. I jumped on it, have no regrets. I really do like those headlights after all. VERY bright. Although I recently heard that those bulbs are a nice target to thieves. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and don't let that scare you. Good luck with your purchase.
I actually wanted those...I'm not TERRIBLY worried about thieves, though I'm going to get the alarm/remote start from Mazda as soon as its available (They said around Q3). I work overnights, so I tend to do a lot of night driving, and that makes visibility at night important.
Of course I ORIGINALLY wanted one without the CD/Moonroof package, but apparently those are REALLY hard to find except as a stripper; apparently that's the first thing they put on them.
"I'd like to see the article that claims stability control saves more lives than airbags, considering the number of cars equipped with airbags vs stability control."
I think that's a whole "active" versus "passive" safety argument...passive being preferable to active, IMHO. AN active system...well, actively controls the car, whereas passive just tries to deal with a crash.
I like safety, but I don't want something doing the driving for me if it decides I'm not doing a good enough job.
Besides, it's a moot point anyway. MazdaUSA doesn't have any plans on offering DSC on the 3. I asked. "No plans, but we'll record your e-mail for product planning." Usual form letter. I figure if they were going to offer it here, it'd be on there...they're probably going to save that and the auto climate control (which they can keep, excep it leaves a blank spot in the driver info panel...) for a mid-life option boost to keep interest in the car going. That's just a guess on my part, of course, but it makes sense, doesn't it?
Thanks for the link. I also read another article a few days ago that was from the US and it said that further study was needed to determine the lives saved by stability control vs airbags, but I forget where! I guess the mind is the first thing to go! Obviously this is the up and coming technology and from what I've read it sounds great. I personally have not driven a car with it yet, so I have no idea what it's like driving with it turned on vs off. It sounds like you have had some experience with it and are quite pleased. I guess we'll have to wait a few more years until more cars have it available here. I would love to see how it would perform on icy roads here in New England. If it works as claimed, it would prevent a lot of accidents, although I still think a lot winter accidents are caused by driving too fast for the road conditions and could be prevented by driver experience. I would hope that stability control wouldn't lead to more people driving beyond their ability for the conditions at hand because now they are thinking, I can't crash, the computer will save me, similar to the SUV drivers who think they can still drive 75 mph in a snowstorm because they have 4 wheel drive. It's quite common here in the Northeast.
They can drive fine like that. Just don't ask them to turn or stop. And if they try, be WELL out of the way. Hahaha!
Honestly, I don't think stability control would be able to deal with ultra-slick conditions where the problem is lack of traction. Since a stability control system works by actuating the steering, throttle, and brakes, and in slick conditions brakes and steering probably aren't going to be working right anyway....well, get the idea?
Not likely, no. Unless you're talking about the special roll-stability systems being put into a couple of SUVs (most stability control systems are directional, meaning X/Y axes..rolling is Z-axis stability). Maybe not even then. Physics are kind of hard to overcome, especially when the moron behind the wheel insists on ignoring them.
Volvo's got some sort of roll-stability system in the XC-90, don't they?
That the top 3 inches or so of the windshield has no tint on it? I thought all cars were made with that. Maybe it's just my hatch...or...maybe I need to get out more. LOL
"Blocking their view of what, low-flying aircraft?"
Traffic lights. I had that problem on my old 96 Chevy Corsica. Unless I stayed way behind the big white "stop line" the whole light was in that tint band, and it was really hard to distinguish depending on the time of day. Depends on how tall you are (taller is worse) generally.
I know the Canadian model doesn't have the tint on the windshield because of the sensors for the auto wipers/lights. Maybe as a cost saver they just decided to use the same winshield on all the cars no matter which country they were going to.
Wow, it's been a while since I've posted on any of the Mazda3 boards. Anyways, the Mazda's assembled in Japan do not have the windshield tint whereas those assembled in N. America do. Just a decision made with the glass-supplier (Saint-Gobain for the Mazda3, Carlex with the Flat Rock made Mazda6).
Anyways, the Mazda3 I ordered way back arrived at my dealership a couple weeks ago, and I got a peek at it before it went into their underground storage (I plan on taking delivery April 1). Not good - 2 rotors had one groove on it and 1 rotor had at least three grooves (so I'm pretty concerned about it and will head to the basement tomorrow and run my fingers across to feel how deep those grooves are). Anyone got pads/rotors replaces/turned on their Mazda3? Did it help?
Seems like bad rotors are a common problem on more than just the Mazda3. My Alero had the front rotors replaced at 10K miles under warranty due to warping. It now has 62K miles on it and I haven't had a problem since the replacement. The brakes haven't been touched since the relacement and the rotors look perfect, smooth as glass. The only problem I had was when I checked the rotors by hand one day without letting them cool down first (ouch). Yeah, it will give you a nasty burn.
BTW, there wasn't a recall for this problem, but they replaced a lot of them under a TSB (hint to all you Mazda3 owners).
Personally, if I had a Mazda3 and the rotors looked that bad, I would keep after Mazda until they replaced them. There is no excuse for it.
"I know the Canadian model doesn't have the tint on the windshield because of the sensors for the auto wipers/lights. Maybe as a cost saver they just decided to use the same winshield on all the cars no matter which country they were going to."
So is that what those little black dots are on the top center of the windshield, around the rear-view mirror? I was wondering what that was for.
mazda6s, thanks for the low-flying aircraft comment. Too funny!
The only blind spot that bothers me is when you're trying to make a lane change to the left. I had a Subaru wagon (i.e. tons of window) right before this and was always accustomed to turning and glancing over my left shoulder. When I do that now all I see is the interior of my car. I had to buy one of those what I like to call a "geriatric mirror" - the 2" wide stick-on fish eye ones for the left side view mirror. I just have to train myself to actually use it now.
... aren't the rain sensor - they are placed there to act as a sort of "sun visor" for the gap around the rear view mirror. My strippo 2000 ZX3 windshield had the same sort of dot pattern, and it worked well to block the worst of the glare.
I met Adam at an autocross last week. He took out a scratch form me looked like some one Key'd the back fender. Adam worked on it with his scratch remover, and it worked. http://www.adamspolishes.com is his web site. The detail spray he sells is beyond belief!
Beside finding some great detailing stuff, I autoX'ed my 3 hatchback, it worked pretty good. I don't like the tires. I'm thinking of going up to 18's with a ultra performance tire. Any Ideas?
I checked replacement costs for the 17-inch tires, same brand, $179 each!! Ouch! If I bought a HB the first thing I would do is open a savings account at the bank for tire day.
Speaking about DSC and other electronic safety options, I agree that drivers should be able to control their cars in case the devices do not work. Student pilots are always trained to land the aircraft at night without the landing lights on for that very reason. It's easy with the lights on to tell where the ground is, but on a moonless night with the lights burned out, that's a whole different ballgame -- everything looks black.
I also wonder about the electroluminesant gauges, how long do they last? Can they burn out unexpectedly? What has to be replaced, after the warrenty, and at what cost?
Technology is great as long as it works when you need it most.
Here's another note: Don't replace the fog light bulbs with those fake xenons. The light they put out blinds on-coming drivers because it can't be cut-off at the top like real xenons, instead, it scatters in all directions. This according to cartalk.com -- the guys you listen to on PBS.
For buyers: Take the time to get what you want; or be stuck with wanting what you got.
Anyone know how much it would be for a set of 4 Nokian WR tires would be for the 5 door? I know that they would have been around $100 apiece for my old car.
Fowler3: May not be able to cut off the top of the fogs, but I don't know if you can do that with the low beams either; they're projection headlights. The NICE thing about having ultra-whites in the fogs though, is they can be switched OFF when not needed, unlike the low beams.
The OE Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires are $159 from www.tirerack.com, but the Michelin Pilot Sport A/S at $173 would be a better choice at replacement time.
Fowler3: May not be able to cut off the top of the fogs, but I don't know if you can do that with the low beams either; they're projection headlights. The NICE thing about having ultra-whites in the fogs though, is they can be switched OFF when not needed, unlike the low beams.
I think the projector headlights do cut off the top of the beam. Looking closely at the headlights you can't see it as clearly as on the 3's halogen units.
What, you don't switch off the low beams when NOT needed? That's odd.
mazda6s: Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires at $159 are still expensive. As far as I can tell those 17" wheels and low-pro tires are pretty, beyond that, their value is all negatives: Expensive to replace; Short life; Can easily damage the wheels driving at the limits; No protection for the wheels near curbs, etc., etc.
My first thought seeing them up close: They are too skinny to hold air long if punctured, such as by a nail. I got a nail in a tire recently, probably drove on it a couple days before noticing it was getting flat. Pumped it up again and it held until I could get it repaired the next day.
With almost every vehical on the road sporting alloys, having the 17's is not the big PLUS it use to be. IMHO. I would sell them to some dweeb and put Mazda's 16" alloys on the HB. Hey, it's only an inch difference.
I think after several hundred hours they output about half their original intensity. However, even this should still be fine. For an idea of what this would be like, buy a pair of those "Indiglo", "Limelight" or similar type of nightlights. Plug one in, leaving the other in a drawer for the time period of interest. Then plug the second one in, next to the first one. The difference is quite noticeable, but the "worn" one will still put out plenty of useful light. Some "splotchiness" may develop, though this is usually only seen with cheaper (usually thinner) coatings. As with LEDs, so long as you don't "burn" them out with too much current or voltage, they should last the life of the car.
of 17" tires a while ago. Many M# posters said it was negligble. As usual a debate started with my being called a "hater". 17" tires wear faster, cost more, ride harsher, and waste fuel. I don't see the value in having them as OEM on what is essentially the value leader in the Mazda line.
I recently noticed that the paint on the side sill extension, above it on the rear door and underneath the rear bumper of my hatchback is chipping pretty bad from sand and gravel being kicked up by the tires from when they sanded the roads during all the snow we had in the northeast....I alerted the sales manager at my local dealer and he said he will investigate it with Mazda to see if anyone else has had a similar problem....is anyone else seeing this? I believe the side sill extension is supposed to take the place of a mud flap but it isn't doing the job.
extension is to make the car look lower and to collect moisture to rust out the rocker panel. j/k, but I would worry about exactly that happening. Mud flaps won't fit on ground effects-equiped cars.
creakid1: I agree, but I said that earlier. What is needed is an alloy ring which attaches to the outer rims of alloy wheels, about 1/2-inch wide, which would give the appearance of a 17" wheel using 16" tires on same-size alloys. It would simply hide a 1/2-inch of the tire making it look like a low-profile.
"What, you don't switch off the low beams when NOT needed? That's odd."
Hmm, ok, lemee elaborate. When you have some headlights on at night, you MUST have the low beams on if someone is coming in the other direction (if no one is, who cares, right? Highs, fogs, turn em ALL on! Hehe). So the lows have to be on, nothing you can do. But the fogs can be switched off when needed (Like, uh, when it's NOT FOGGY? heh).
Comments
& they're all FWD Euro models, including 5-sp & 6-sp manual, w/ Euro plates & convex driver-side mirror. It's one hell of a "plush Mazda3"!
Isn't it amazing that the G35 is so horrible and yet C&D put it on the 10 best list again? If the car is so unsafe that it can't be driven without the stability control, you'd think that it wouldn't be on the list. Stability control should be an additional safety measure, not a substitute for learning how to drive properly, IMO. I guess I'm stuck in the old school where you learned the cars limits and your own.
I had this happen on one of my vehicles. (not the Mazda!)
Of course you'd THINK it would just revert back to regular brakes, but no..... that would be too easy! When I hit the brakes, it actually turned on for a second, pulsed the brakes a few times, then failed and kicked itself back to regular brakes, then turned on again for a second, and then off, on, off, etc., etc...
All in all, I managed to sail through a (thankfully empty) intersection with hardly any braking power at all. I figure it actually increased my braking distance by 3 to 4 times. (which in a 4500 pound car was already considerable.) Luckily, I realized what it was doing and just applied gentle, constant pressure to the pedal, brought the car gently down to a slow, safe speed and hobbled home. Anyway the point is, these advanced safety systems (ABS, DSC, TC, etc) should never be a replacement for driving skill -- they make cars safer but at the risk of making the drivers less proficient.
Agreed.
That's why you should turn off the stability control & practice on an open area such as empty parking lots when the road is wet.
Even when they ranked it 1st place ahead of the much-weaker-engine 325i in the March '04 issue, they still found
1) its sport suspension/tires MUCH less comfortable than the 325i's already-firm (lowered than std)sport suspension/tires over rippled surfaces.
2)"At the track the G35 demonstrated a willingness to rotate that was regard as handy by some and a little DISCONCERTING by others but was only evident with the dynamic-control switched off. Regular owners would likely LEAVE THAT ON."
That's why all G35's got the stability control std.
C&D drivers are not CR drivers. At least they weren't complaining about the G35 w/ the traction or stability control switched on. & they didn't even mention about the not-so-predictable oversteer when lift off as mentioned by CR, which tested the one w/o sport suspension/tires.
Neither did cars have airbags back then. We're talking about TODAY'S standard here.
At least the Mazda3 is still much safer than the G35 to handle at the limit when not using the stability control.
The G35 is still recommendable 'cause the stability control is std. Not like some tipping SUVs that can't be cured, including the BMW X5, which wasn't recommendable due to the reliability alone.
By the way, according to the TV news last night, the American Focus is now twice as reliable as the BMW 7-series, eventhough that's not saying much.
The Mazda3 is available w/ DSC all over the world except us who think small cars have to be cheaper than the Camry, which offers optional stability control.
There was an article issued from the National Hwy Safety(or something like that) someone posted in the Mazda3 thread many months ago. It sez research has shown the stability program saves lives many times more than airbags.
The government might as well require all cars to be equipped w/ stability control std, while make the air bags(just bunch bags full of air! ;-) ) optional to keep the price down. By the way, the VW Passat only charges $280 for the stability upgrade from the std traction control.
I highly recommend the DSC for the Mazda3 'cause, unlike some numb-steering boring cars, this car is so much fun driving at the limit that you'll be spoiled to go that fast frequently, & you will need to use the DSC someday or more often, unlike the expensive airbags that will probably never be used.
And the only negative (in their opinion) - hat it "needs revvin", in my mind, is actually a positive!
BTW - nice discussion you have going here - I might have to go try out a 3 at my dealer
One can only have so much faith in people actually driving well.
I'm SOO happy...I'll finally have my own set of wheels again, after driving a loaner that I hate for a week. Incidentally, it's also my FIRST BRAND NEW CAR, thereby making me all the happier.
Of course I ORIGINALLY wanted one without the CD/Moonroof package, but apparently those are REALLY hard to find except as a stripper; apparently that's the first thing they put on them.
See:
creakid1 "Mazda3" Oct 12, 2003 5:05pm
I like safety, but I don't want something doing the driving for me if it decides I'm not doing a good enough job.
Besides, it's a moot point anyway. MazdaUSA doesn't have any plans on offering DSC on the 3. I asked. "No plans, but we'll record your e-mail for product planning." Usual form letter. I figure if they were going to offer it here, it'd be on there...they're probably going to save that and the auto climate control (which they can keep, excep it leaves a blank spot in the driver info panel...) for a mid-life option boost to keep interest in the car going. That's just a guess on my part, of course, but it makes sense, doesn't it?
Obviously this is the up and coming technology and from what I've read it sounds great. I personally have not driven a car with it yet, so I have no idea what it's like driving with it turned on vs off. It sounds like you have had some experience with it and are quite pleased. I guess we'll have to wait a few more years until more cars have it available here. I would love to see how it would perform on icy roads here in New England. If it works as claimed, it would prevent a lot of accidents, although I still think a lot winter accidents are caused by driving too fast for the road conditions and could be prevented by driver experience. I would hope that stability control wouldn't lead to more people driving beyond their ability for the conditions at hand because now they are thinking, I can't crash, the computer will save me, similar to the SUV drivers who think they can still drive 75 mph in a snowstorm because they have 4 wheel drive. It's quite common here in the Northeast.
Honestly, I don't think stability control would be able to deal with ultra-slick conditions where the problem is lack of traction. Since a stability control system works by actuating the steering, throttle, and brakes, and in slick conditions brakes and steering probably aren't going to be working right anyway....well, get the idea?
Volvo's got some sort of roll-stability system in the XC-90, don't they?
Many drivers can only sit comfortably in the 3 when the seat is fully raised, the 3 inches can be a blind spot.
Even my '90 Pro didn't have it. Only when I replaced the cracked windshield did I noticed the Chinese-made windshield came w/ that blue upper tint.
Blocking their view of what, low-flying aircraft?
Traffic lights. I had that problem on my old 96 Chevy Corsica. Unless I stayed way behind the big white "stop line" the whole light was in that tint band, and it was really hard to distinguish depending on the time of day. Depends on how tall you are (taller is worse) generally.
Anyways, the Mazda3 I ordered way back arrived at my dealership a couple weeks ago, and I got a peek at it before it went into their underground storage (I plan on taking delivery April 1). Not good - 2 rotors had one groove on it and 1 rotor had at least three grooves (so I'm pretty concerned about it and will head to the basement tomorrow and run my fingers across to feel how deep those grooves are). Anyone got pads/rotors replaces/turned on their Mazda3? Did it help?
BTW, there wasn't a recall for this problem, but they replaced a lot of them under a TSB (hint to all you Mazda3 owners).
Personally, if I had a Mazda3 and the rotors looked that bad, I would keep after Mazda until they replaced them. There is no excuse for it.
So is that what those little black dots are on the top center of the windshield, around the rear-view mirror? I was wondering what that was for.
mazda6s, thanks for the low-flying aircraft comment. Too funny!
The only blind spot that bothers me is when you're trying to make a lane change to the left. I had a Subaru wagon (i.e. tons of window) right before this and was always accustomed to turning and glancing over my left shoulder. When I do that now all I see is the interior of my car. I had to buy one of those what I like to call a "geriatric mirror" - the 2" wide stick-on fish eye ones for the left side view mirror. I just have to train myself to actually use it now.
http://www.adamspolishes.com is his web site.
The detail spray he sells is beyond belief!
Beside finding some great detailing stuff, I autoX'ed my 3 hatchback, it worked pretty good.
I don't like the tires. I'm thinking of going up to 18's with a ultra performance tire. Any Ideas?
Speaking about DSC and other electronic safety options, I agree that drivers should be able to control their cars in case the devices do not work. Student pilots are always trained to land the aircraft at night without the landing lights on for that very reason. It's easy with the lights on to tell where the ground is, but on a moonless night with the lights burned out, that's a whole different ballgame -- everything looks black.
I also wonder about the electroluminesant gauges, how long do they last? Can they burn out unexpectedly? What has to be replaced, after the warrenty, and at what cost?
Technology is great as long as it works when you need it most.
Here's another note: Don't replace the fog light bulbs with those fake xenons. The light they put out blinds on-coming drivers because it can't be cut-off at the top like real xenons, instead, it scatters in all directions. This according to cartalk.com -- the guys you listen to on PBS.
For buyers: Take the time to get what you want; or be stuck with wanting what you got.
fowler3
Fowler3: May not be able to cut off the top of the fogs, but I don't know if you can do that with the low beams either; they're projection headlights. The NICE thing about having ultra-whites in the fogs though, is they can be switched OFF when not needed, unlike the low beams.
I think the projector headlights do cut off the top of the beam. Looking closely at the headlights you can't see it as clearly as on the 3's halogen units.
What, you don't switch off the low beams when NOT needed? That's odd.
mazda6s: Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires at $159 are still expensive. As far as I can tell those 17" wheels and low-pro tires are pretty, beyond that, their value is all negatives: Expensive to replace; Short life; Can easily damage the wheels driving at the limits; No protection for the wheels near curbs, etc., etc.
My first thought seeing them up close: They are too skinny to hold air long if punctured, such as by a nail. I got a nail in a tire recently, probably drove on it a couple days before noticing it was getting flat. Pumped it up again and it held until I could get it repaired the next day.
With almost every vehical on the road sporting alloys, having the 17's is not the big PLUS it use to be. IMHO. I would sell them to some dweeb and put Mazda's 16" alloys on the HB. Hey, it's only an inch difference.
fowler3
fowler3
I know one very short guy who's always after long-leg chicks putting those 18-19" alloys on his GS430.
Only a secure guy like me never bother to go over 16". I'm happy w/ "only" 16". ;-)
I believe the side sill extension is supposed to take the place of a mud flap but it isn't doing the job.
creakid1: I agree, but I said that earlier. What is needed is an alloy ring which attaches to the outer rims of alloy wheels, about 1/2-inch wide, which would give the appearance of a 17" wheel using 16" tires on same-size alloys. It would simply hide a 1/2-inch of the tire making it look like a low-profile.
fowler3
Hmm, ok, lemee elaborate.
That's what I was trying to say.
gee: You ARE a hater.
creakid: He wants the long-leg chicks too put the 18-19" alloys on HIS car?
mazda6s