Mazda3 Hatchback

regfootball

to me the Sportif concept has a little bit of the BMW Z3 in the rear tail and front end. Mayb e a bit in the greenhouse also.

mudflat

I'm sure it's a good car, but it's too bad Mazda couldn't have imbued it with the versatility and sleek charm of a Citroen 2CV -- especially when the top's down.

carguy58

the 3 like somebody said before looks like the Alfa with a little Rx-8 or 1997-2003 Rx300 on the tailghts(take your pick between the 2.) Motor Trend criticized the Pro 5 for not having enough interior room so on the 3 hatch Mazda gave it more interior room. The 3 hatch looks its made for the people who don't want an SUV. I'm kind of happy with the horsepower jump though from the Pro to the 3.

bluong1

Anyway, these French/Italian-style driving positions are being criticized by the Brit car magazines as well.

what a surprise! French vs Brit!

Bruno

bluong1

I'm kind of happy with the horsepower jump though from the Pro to the 3.

Me too. The power will increase only at high RPM, making the new engine more happy-rev. This is a weak point of the current engine. From the spec of the 2.0l, it seems torque at lower RPM (said bellow 4700 rpm) will remain about the same. The Mazda 3 could be a little heavier (because it's a tad bigger than P5). I hope the new transmission doesn't have taller gear ratios, so that the vivacity and fun-to-drive factor is about the same as the current Pr5.

Bruno

bluong1

http://www.mme-press.com/pics/mazda3_hofo_JPG.zip

iamz

Is the silvery garland an option or will it come standard.

johnclineii

Silvery garland? I thought that was shaving cream!

revka

"The first car off the line was a European-specification five-door hatchback."
 
Read the complete story here: Mazda3 starts production. We can thank (ateixeira) for this link, which he posted in another discussion.

Also, if any of you come across other members that are interested discussing the Mazda3 5 door hatch, feel free to tell them about this discussion. Here's the url to this discussion: /direct/view/.ef13089

Thanks for your participation! ;-)

Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards

ateixeira

Welcome. :-)

Saw the concept at the NY Auto Show, it's very cute and looks very roomy. It looks less sporty than the P5, which was close to it. It should appeal more to families but less to sporty drivers. The 6 became more sporty so I was a bit surprised, maybe Mazda figures that customer is already served.

-juice

carguy58

it doesn't look very truck-like in the pictures I just saw(in Japan the new 3 is going to be called the Axela?) Could be a body kit because I know the concept of the Pro 5 looked different in pictures when it first debut in pictures too. The 3 hatch has more of a shape to it than the pictures I previously saw. Its bigger than the P5. Could be a bad thing or a good thing for the young crowd depending on tastes.

mazdafun

I think overall length and height are pretty much the same, but the 3 is wider than the P5.

ateixeira

Same height, really? It appears a lot taller. Might just look that way, or maybe the P5 has a roof rack and they counted that in the height measurement.

-juice

creakid1

There are lot of "balloons" out there & are popular, from the Element, PT Cruiser, Scions, & even the Porsche Cayenne. The 3 hatch just want a chunk of their market.

bluong1

check the dimensions of Mazda3 in post #124. Yes, compared to the P5, the Mazda3 is wider and a tad lower and longer.

dinu01

Wider: Good
Lower: Good
Longer: Not so good - although the P5's trunk is small...

From the pics, it looks like a very tall car, but if the dimensions are true, then we could potentially have a sportier car than the current P5, which in my books is not a bad thing. That and the 2.3 I4 from the M6i would make quite a Zoom-Zoom mobile

Dinu

ateixeira

Wow, but does it take into account the P5 has a roof rack? The rack probably adds 2-3" of height to the P5, so it seems artificially tall.

-juice

iamz

I'll try to remember to measure the height of my P5 tonight when I get home and NOT include the roof rack or rails. Then we'll have a fair comparison. (I'll add 3/16" for tire wear)

bluong1

You make a good point. Here are the heights for various 2003 models given by Mazda websites:

P5 US: 57.8" (1468mm)
P5 Canadian: 55.9" (1420mm)
Protege US: 55.5" (1410mm)
Mazda3: 57.1" (1450mm)

Obviously the P5 US number is wrong, because the current model no longer equipped with roof rack and it should have the same height as the canadian version. Mazda USA simply forgot to modify the spec accordingly.

I stand corrected: Mazda3 is 1.2" (30mm) taller than the Protege5

Bruno

PS: however may be the 17-in-wheels version is 1/4-1/2" lower.

ateixeira

So it's close, or just a tad taller at the roofline.

It seems even taller. I would not have been surprised if you had said it was 3" taller than the P5. I bet head room is excellent.

-juice

mazdafun

So long as the handling dynamics of the car aren't compromised.

iamz

I didn't have a chance to measure the height last night, but it looks like we've already answered the question. As far as handling goes, my friends Focus is a couple inches taller than the P5 and with the aftermarket shocks and springs he put on, the car handles just as nice (no noticeable body roll) as the P5. So as long as Mazda tweaks the suspension right, I don't think a couple of inches will make a difference

creakid1

The roof doesn't weight much, especially w/o sunroof. Everything heavy from the engine to the platform, gas tank, etc. are all down there. It's the PLATFORM HEIGHT that really matters, so the only losers are the high-ground-clearance SUVs.

Back in the early '80's, either C&D or R&T just couldn't find any handling advantage of the Scirocco over the several-inches-taller Rabbit GTI when both of these same-engine-&-platform cars are equipped w/ 14" & sport suspension. These VWs are superb handlers. Even the spare tire is located ahead between the rear wheels & don't got rear overhang weight. So in the event of oversteer, there's no "pendulum" momentum to swing the rear continuously & can be brought back immediately.

Notice the longer-wheelbase new 3 probably got less overhangs than the Protege as well.

bluong1

reduces the vivacity unfortunately (and the turning radius for those who care.)

I'm surprise that no one mentions the Mazda3 has a multi-link rear suspension. Now that's something new for a compact car (or whatever size-category).

Bruno

ateixeira

Doesn't Civic also have that?

-juice

bluong1

Double wishbone in the rear of grand mom Civic.

Bruno

the_big_h

so is the Focus

mazdafun

As do the current ones.

The wheelbase isn't that different from current, which I think is about 103inches. I think the 3 has one of 103.5inches.

Longer wheelbases work against tight turning circles but do wonders for freeway ride (less front-rear seesawing action when driving over the breaks in pavement, especially over breaks between sections of concrete).

bluong1

It seems that no one has the same definition of multilink. So let's me state it again. The true multi-link suspension has no less than 5 arms. None of the Civic, Focus, or current Protege have those.

creakid1

Focus/Mazda3 & Mazda6 got 4 links, although different kinds of links. I thought Honda sedans(not minivan) got 5 links. So do Mercedes rear, while the wonderfully amazing BMW got fewer than 5 links.

The 323/Protege's twin trapezoid is not as sophisticated as the Focus design.

creakid1

"longer-wheelbase
reduces the vivacity unfortunately (and the turning radius for those who care.)"

Transversely mounted engine takes lateral space & increased turning circle. But even early Sentra's got small tc. So it really depends how the manufacturer wants to do. I guess their conspiracy is to make both large & small cars w/ similar tc so customers who step up to the larger car next time won't be pissed off.

I noticed the Civic-size-wheelbase '92 Camry got huge interior alone w/ large tc, especially w/ the V6 engine, which is a shorter block than the inline 4. While the smaller-tc RWD Lexus LS400 got a much longer wheelbase but less leg room than the Camry. The 2nd-generation '95 LS400(still got long wheelbase) got improved leg room along w/ an amazingly small turning circle.

The Mazda6's huge turning circle is already a pain in the butt, so Mazda3 better offer a small one to capture the lost customers.

johnclineii

Yeah, right.

I am SURE that turning circle is a major criterion of a large majority of customers seeking new vehicles. NOT.

regfootball

i hate the large turning circle in my taurus SLO. Its annoying enough to make me not want it again.

At the same time, if a liked a car bad enough, a larger than avg. turn circle wouldn't stop me.

bluong1

I look back at an old document. Here is what struck me: during the first official presentation of the Mazda6, October-November 2001, the hp of the 2.3l is officially announced as 178hp. We all know the final number when the car was commercialized few month later. They did a better job in estimate the hp of the V6.

Hope this over-estimation won't happen again for the MZR 2.0l Mazda3. (this engine is rated around 141hp on the 6)

Bruno

mazfan1

I was looking at the blue Mazda3 on the Mazdausa website and I notice two little square cirles below the headlights on top of the bumper. What are those? I was thinking they were headlight washers. The RX-8 have them on the japan version models.

Watch the clip and you will see the front end of the car.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=- - upcomingMazda3

bluong1

the squares are where the washers are mounted. Not sure which country may have those though. I also notice that the blue one that is presented by Mazda is equipped with Bridgestone Potenza tires! I hope they don't put the Dunlop again.

Bruno

mazfan1

Thanks Bluong1!,and yes Mazda NO Dunlops tires please. Yeah Bridgestones Potenza would be nice.

johnclineii

Different folks make the world go round. I would much rather have the Dunlops than the Bridgestones! Too bad you don't have a choice on new cars, then again it is hard enough to find a Mazda6 with the configs it supposedly has!

bluong1

What is bad about the Bridgestones? The Dunlops SP 5000 on the Protege(5) suck big time. They are decent when new, but after 20k miles they fell apart, become noisy, creating vibrations, ...

Bruno

johnclineii

Are you comparing after market Bridgestones to them? I have never had original equipment Dunlops. OEM tires are almost never as good as the replacement tires. They are built to a spec, which is why BridgestoneFirestone and Ford pointed fingers at each other over the Explorer tires...(as much fun as it would be to say, I shant say Explorer exploding tires..)

bluong1

First: I don't care if tires are OEM or after-market as long as I know the model.

Second: we are talking about OEM here.

johnclineii

OEM tires and aftermarket tires are NOT comparable. Tire builders will change models however a manufacturer wants, within limits, to meet a cost target. BridgestoneFirestone did this on the Explorer when Goodyear had refused.

Let's move on.

We are never going to agree on this...

mazdafun

The Bridgestone RE92 and Firestone FR680-2 that were stock on early Protege sedans were terrible at wet traction. REALLY TERRIBLE. My LX was able to easily spin the tires (Firestones), and it the engine makes only 107lb-ft of torque! While the tread wear rate was slow, its horrible wet traction and marginal traction on snow or ice made it a bad tire. I heard similar comments on the RE92 tires.

Now, the aftermarket Bridgestone RE910 my wife put on her Saturn SL2 were great. So are the Dunlop SP Sport A2 tires I put on my Pro LX. The Dunlop SP 5000 tires on my wife's P5 have been very good so far, but she's only put about 6000 miles on them. A friend with a BMW 325i with the same model says they hydroplane easily. Yet my wife's P5 handles very well in the rain. Guess the particular size and aspect ratio within a tire model matter too. Of course, the BMW is RWD, so a lower percentage of its weight is placed on the front tires, and its tires are wider, so maybe less pressure is put on the contact patch, explaining why he experiences hydroplaning and my wife doesn't with the same tire model.

And I care about turning circle (wall-to-wall, not curb-to-curb). I don't like making more points in a u-turn or while parking than I have to. Makes parallel parking much easier too, though I haven't had to do that much since I left NYC.

dinu01

My 2001 PRO ES came standard with 15" Potenzas that wore off in 38.000kms (24.000miles) to the point that driving the car in rain was like walking on a rope between two skyscrapers - scary stuff. These tires wore-off extremelly quickly!!! I know the Dunlops on the ES GT model and P5s in Canada were not much better, so I guess we can conclude that OEM tires won't last as long as aftermarket ones.

I replaced the RE92s with Avid Touring from Yokohama which are better in rain and have shown no noticeable signs of wearing-off since last August, all in 24.000kms (15.000miles), something I can't say for the RE92s. I actually improved the ride (especially on the highway) of the PRO by going from 195/55/15 to 195/60/15. Handling doesn't suffer as these Yokos have a stiff sidewall.

Dinu

bean3422

I had Potenza Re92 on my Pro, and they were dangerous and very loud after 15000 miles. I hydroplaned a couple of times but put up with it until they were worn out at 23000.

I put Dunlop SP 5000 assymetrical on there and they have been great. 27000 miles later and they are hardly worn, they are still very quiet, and they handle great. Never had a problem in the rain at all, even in the Northeast deluge this spring.

Dinu...you usually have good things to say, but I have to disagree, since I went the opposite. My dunlops were 205/50/15...I have no problem at all with the ride, the harder the better. Of course I am turning 30 soon, so maybe in 10 or 15 more years I will appreciate a soft ride (Please I hope not.) Just ribbin' you though (-:

We do agree that the Re92s are terrible. (By the way, the consumer reviews on TIRERACK.com agree with us too. They also like the SP5000.)

dinu01

I actually got a better ride by going to a taller sidewall while still being able to "pull stunts" on the on ramps - going 50mph on one rated at 25mph near my house - that one's a blast!!! I go out of my way at least once a week just for kicks to try that ramp!

I also had to consider a "softer" tire if you will as my mom also drives this car and she did complain about the ride a few times. After all it's her car. I just enjoy driving it since it's so much fun!!! She's 53 and I'm 22: different priorities as far as the ride goes without a doubt But at least she let me pick the car I wanted for her, so while I have to drive a 91 Maxima now, I can always take the PRO out if I wanna remind myself how a "tight" car is.

Now about the Dunlops SP5000: I don't have the P5 or the ES GT so I don't have first-hand info on them, but I heard others (at a Toronto Protege Club meet) complain. Based on that I was stating that OEM tires will never be as good as aftermarket ones.

Dinu

bluong1

27000 miles later and they are hardly worn

check careful the center bed, when you see the tread is about two millimeters, everything will go bad quickly from that moment, it will be worn unevenly. There are many complains in the Protege5 board, check it out.

bluong1

Based on that I was stating that OEM tires will never be as good as aftermarket ones.

Any trust-worthy reference on that statement? I can't hardly imagine tire manufacturers build the same model differently depending on OEM or after-market. That's a very serious accusation.

I wonder if this is just another smart invention from those lawyers.

Bruno

dinu01

I think you misinterpreted my post or I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't trying to say that if Mazda puts RE92s on a Protege and I go to Costco (for argument's sake) and buy RE92s that the tires will differ in quality, but rather that automakers will more often than not (at least in cars that don't cost an arm and a leg) put lower quality tires on their cars.

I state this b/c most PRO owners in the Protege sedan room were forced to buy new tires 2-3 years after buying their car b/c of tires wearing off way too soon. And no one has bought RE92s again, that's for sure!

I hope my previous post is a bit clearer now

Dinu

bluong1

My bad... It's clear now! Big relieve for me, at the moment I though I would never buy new cars again...