By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
How a car looks is totally subjective - I don't like the styling of the Civic and you do. That's just the way it is.
I didn't mention the S2000 because it's totally irrelevant to the discussion here, which was pretty much my whole point.
I'm way past all that BS at my stage of life - but there you go... enjoy.
I went back and reread yor review and I agree the Mazda 3 is more fun to drive than any Civic ( or my Accord) except the Si. Enjoy your car.
As far as being past that stage of life, I am much older than you and the S2000 is my first convertible. I also have a Hobie Mirage Outback being delivered today. Stages of life change
Regards from Baby Boomer,
MidCow
P.S.- If you will look back and read through all 512 previous messages you will find much comment from me, probably more than you desire. Again, enjoy your Mazda!
It's just you. :P
It's just you.
Sorry, no it isn't. I think the 3 AND new Camry look a like on the front (READ - Overstyled Characature of a grill).
It just isn't my taste, although it may well be yours. That's why we have more than one car company, after all.
It just isn't my taste, although it may well be yours. That's why we have more than one car company, after all.
Well, i kinda see your point, but, personally, I like it. I think overall, the Japanese cars have much better styling then american makes, and german makes. I do like BMW, however. Def. not VW.
I guess if lack of substance for a grill is your cup of tea, then this is the clear winner:
I think we understand each other a little better now. Always a good thing and I appreciate the comments.
As far as the new Civic being BMW'ish... I'm just not seeing it though...
if anything - I think the Mazda3 leans more that way.
PS - I was going to search for a picture of a suppository to put with the Civic... but the thought of the results of a Google search for that scared me far too much!
Consider, though, that one of the classiest cars sold in my lifetime, in my opinion, is the 1992-1993 Accord Sedan.
On a side-note...I haven't learned how to insert pix...a little help here?
Use the img button in the tool bar when you're posting. Click it, insert the url of the picture (if you see a pic on the net, right click it and you can get the address under proerties) then click img button again. Preview it to make sure it's working
you mean this??? interesting...
to insert a pic - just hit the Img button below the Message box and type the URL for the location of the image.
"Consider, though, that one of the classiest cars sold in my lifetime, in my opinion, is the 1992-1993 Accord Sedan."
Are you really serious?
MidCow
Call me crazy (I have no doubt you will!).
This is the 1993 compared with the many lines of MY 2006.
I knew about copying the URL, it was just a matter of finding the "img" button. Thanks!
Okay cool! I liked the lines of the first 2.7 liter Acura Legends.
I have got to get my carspace up and show some pictures.
I think the car I have always liked is "Elsie" from "Gone in 60 minutes". Also, like the looks of the original 1963 split window Stingray.
Nice black Accord sedan; you need fog lights to accent the looks
Double Sixes,
MidCow
P.S. - Hey neither of those cars you posted looks cartoonish :shades:
Nope. Cartoons inspire a reaction. Neither of those designs inspire a reaction. Except maybe drowsiness :P
Concerning styling, it is a funny science. If you make something that is extremely fasionable today then it ages fast and significnatly loose popularity in the future.
Take for instance when I first saw the protege 5 tailights and then the current style Altima, they looked awesome. Everyone now has similar taillights and they look old and worn out. If you look at the 1993 Honda that TheGraduate posted it still looks timeless. You really can't say thta about a 1993 Mazda ( except mmaybe the twin turbo RX7)
I think I like Honda's philosopy of simple, timeless style. It looks good today and it looks good tomorrow. Honda cars are relaible and will be around tomorrow. Maybe that is why they design timeless styles.
Other companies such as Mazda, look for faddish dramtic styles. Thies is a near term tactical solution, rather than a long term strategic solution. The Mazda 3 looked good when it came out, but it is already starting to look a little tired. In a couple of years it will look worn out.
If you want examples of other timeless styles look at the 1960s Jaguars or the 1990s Lexus GS. Then look as FAD flops Ford's double bubble Taurus, any Buick, etc.
I myself prefer more timeless style, but hey you r opinion may vary,
Double Sixes,
MidCow
The 1988 Yugo was the best in the US. What does tha mean? NOTHING.
I think the Edsel is timeless also and the 1958 was the best model.
Timeless is as timeless does!
Remember E=mc^2 Go the speed of light and be timeless,
MidCow
E=mc*2 applies only in normal space.
Concerning styling, it is a funny science. If you make something that is extremely fasionable today then it ages fast and significnatly loose popularity in the future.
Take for instance when I first saw the protege 5 tailights and then the current style Altima, they looked awesome. Everyone now has similar taillights and they look old and worn out. If you look at the 1993 Honda that TheGraduate posted it still looks timeless. You really can't say thta about a 1993 Mazda ( except mmaybe the twin turbo RX7)
I think I like Honda's philosopy of simple, timeless style. It looks good today and it looks good tomorrow. Honda cars are relaible and will be around tomorrow. Maybe that is why they design timeless styles.
Other companies such as Mazda, look for faddish dramtic styles. Thies is a near term tactical solution, rather than a long term strategic solution. The Mazda 3 looked good when it came out, but it is already starting to look a little tired. In a couple of years it will look worn out.
If you want examples of other timeless styles look at the 1960s Jaguars or the 1990s Lexus GS. Then look as FAD flops Ford's double bubble Taurus, any Buick, etc.
I myself prefer more timeless style, but hey you r opinion may vary, "
What is a timeless style is your opninion as well. In MY opinion what you are considering timeless, I consider boring and safe
Everyone has similar tailights? You sure about that statement? Can you show me a link of a picture of a car that has similar tailights as the 3s? Because I must have missed it
There are all RED agree.
Most of the newer models have gone to LED
And most have a clear outer lens with sub colored lenses red and some amber. But going to LEDs they are mostly red.
So 95%+ of the lights are Celaer ( or smoked) outer panel with red leds inside.
The other 5% are clear outer and clear inner gLASS AND THE BULBS THEMSELVES ARE COLORED: EXAMPLES lEXUS rx330 NAS nEW 2006 eCLIPSE.
sO YES EVERYONE HAS SIMLAR TAILIGHTS! What is your point.
Tick Tick Tick ... Time is running out for Mazda to look good!
Cheers and MrBlonde have a goodday,
MidCow (Harbor Master)
P.s.- My Hobie Mirage Outfitter was just delivered
That said, I like the look of the 3 tailights alot, it was one of the things that reeled me in. Doesn't look garish, like the previous lexus is. The black background makes a big difference, IMO. Most others don't have that
Just a thought.
Just a thought. "
It might look like the 3i a bit, but not the 3s.
I hope the styling of certain Hondas, such as the Pilot (ugly box), CR-V (another ugly box), and Element (an even uglier box) is not timeless, so we do not have to put up with them too much longer.
Man oh man.... I don't even know how to respond to these "timeless design" comments any more...
Also, you chose the low-end model for the photo. The S model with body-color bumpers and the '86-'87 models with flush headlamps were even better looking.
uhhhhhh - a shoebox with four doors on it???
Actually, "a shoebox with two/four doors on it" is a pretty apt description for a number of hatchbacks, including the Mini Cooper and the Fit.
I test drove civic 2006 and corolla and these cars no where came closer to mazda3 when it comes to handling and driving dynamics and I drive stick.
If you want a boring good car with very good mileage then go buy civic/corolla but if you want a fun zoom zoom car under 20k then mazda3 is the choice
I could have definitely gone for bmws only I have $15K more
My car is completely made in japan and I am consistently getting 30mpg in mix of city/highway driving
I love this car whenever I am behind the steering wheels.
Well, considering the Mazda3 came out 2 years before the Buick, I think you would say that the Buick coppied the Mazda.
I do however, the new Civic coppied the Saturn's "timeless" signature front end.
That's nothing compared to the outright theft of the A4 tailights.
But the other way around :P
link title
Civic's lights look closer to the A4's though.
1) Honda owner, would never drive a Mazda, still thinks the car "sucks".
2) Non Honda owner, would like to own a Honda, thinks the car sucks.
3) Teenagers with nothing else to do.
4) Mazda owners defending their choice left and right.
Here's the deal. I used to drive a subcompact, and knew I just needed a bigger car. With a baby on the way, my car would not be useful at all.
I did drive the following cars: Sentra, Corolla, Civic, Mazda3. I'll focus on the cars we are discussing in this thread.
I loved the Civic. It's a great looking car. The coupe is simply beautiful. It's pretty much flawless. Honda's dealerships all rule. People are nice, take good care of you and will not stop until you are satisfied.
I loved the Mazda. In 4 door trim, the looks are killer. It's like a little BMW 3-series. It's not as great looking as the Civic, but it really is no slouch. The dealership, quite frankly, sucks. The rep didn't care as to whether I'd buy the car or not.
I drove the cars. The Civic is a lovely little appliance. I can't see it doing anything wrong. It's quiet, civilized, and very refined. It's a car that whispers to you "don't worry, we'll get right where you want to. Want some Muzak?". Honda knows its game, and it shows.
The Mazda has a bit more character, and it kept me amused while driving it. I kept thinking to myself how much it drove like my dad's 325i - and it's not a joke.
Frankly, at this point, I want to make a comment. An "Economy" car isn't a car that saves lots of fuel. It's a cheap car. Nowhere does it say an economy car can't be fast or fun.
Anyway...
I really, really wanted the Civic. It's an awesome car. I can't see you going wrong with it. I picked the Mazda because it simply was nicer to drive. I had lots of worries about it, since it does have several FoMoCo brand parts inside. But after researching a bit, I found out I'd be buying an AMERICAN made car if I got the Civic, and a JAPANESE made car if I got the Ford-controlled Mazda3. Pick your poison.
I can't see people going wrong with either vehicle, and frankly, I did read the entire thread, just for chuckles. Some people are rabid fanbois with no common sense. For the rest of us, really, it's a matter of taste. I'm glad we have both companies building such great cars.
I got the Mazda, and I'm happy. I could have bought the Civic and be happy, too.
So, there. Oh, if this counts, I traded an european car for it. So Mazda did something right - they got a new driver just because of the strengths of their new 3.
BTW, in town, I average between 27 and 30 MPG, with about 1 part interstate to 2 parts 30 MPH w/ stop signs.
I love the way the 3i touring drives and am generally satisfied that reliability is decent (or at least as decent as a new model for Honda) , but I really dislike the black interior that is in 95% of the models around here (Wisconsin). Going for the gold exterior is not an option, and I can't find a green model or blue with tan interior anywhere. Are they available elsewhere?
As for the claims about the Accord (off topic for this thread), I would be careful. Our other car is a 2.4L Accord LX and the mileage is not nearly what "thegraduate" gets. (About 21 MPG city, 27 MPG mixed, 36 MPG pure highway). We love the car, but want better fuel efficiency for tooling around town and short trips.
My dad drives his Accord (2.4L) harder (revving more) than I, getting about 23-24 MPG in town, as opposed to my 28MPG.
I also move to ban anyone throwing the civic si into the discussion. The Si is the performance enthusiast version of the civic, and should be compared to the mazdaspeed3 which is coming soon. And just like the Mazda3 stomps the civic in just about any category (except gas mileage), so does the mazdaspeed3 leaves the civic si in the dust. And please dont bring prices into this, as these change with demand and supply, and anyway the entry level Mazda3 i-touring is still better than the civic EX and costs way less.
your post does have some good points about comparing one model to another.
Whoa, there partner. I said I averaged 80 MPH, and in fact DID drive in hills around those speeds (65-85, stayed at 80MPH on flat road). The only "experimental" part was the fact that I didn't use Cruise Control.
No lies, here!
The reason I am about to take back my new Honda 2006 Civic coupe (980 miles) is because the rear windshield lifted off the right rear pillar. As if this weren't alarming enough, there were other recalls and issues with the car that make me now wish I'd gotten the Mazda 3.
As I had to wait two days for my Honda dealer service appt., I was urgently asked not to drive with the windows down. Even so, by the time I arrived at my appointment, the rear windshield had lifted off the entire roof line, with the most pronounced lift being 2" at the right rear pillar.
Had I been aware of others' complaints of squeaks and rattles, I might have realized earlier that they were due to the rear windshield.
The dealership said they'd never seen anything like the lift that occured when the driver, or the passenger, door was closed: the air going back into the car was all the force necessary to lift the rear windshield from the frame. They also said that an insufficient amount of caulk had been used and that their "glass guys" had also never seen anything like it.
There's a similar complaint at the NHTSA website (www.safercar.gov). Too, an acqaintance said he'd been driving behind a new Civic going to work last Monday and he saw that Civic's rear windshield lift at the right rear pillar. He changed lanes fast.
That said, I am going to be returning the car this week and my next choice is the Mazda 3. I wish I'd read this discussion FIRST before I got the Honda Civic. This 2006 Civic is (for other reasons too) the worst car I've ever driven. I have loved all my previous 6 cars (none was a Honda), but, sadly, this was a terrible mistake.
Onto the Mazda 3.
Also - is Honda planning on doing anything besides fixing the car - like take it back and return your $? It seems like something like this would get some special notice at Honda.
Wow! That is an amazing account of your experiences with your '06 Civic. How sad for Honda.
I'm curious - What do you mean when you say, you are "returning" your car? Is your dealer giving all of your money back?
thanks
pt
I don't know where you live, but, in CT, I'm pretty sure you have 3 days to return a car for a full refund. After that, the dealer does not have to do anything. And if you try to lemon law, that's even tougher to get to stick. Good luck, and if by chance you are in CT, I have a wonderful dealership to recomend!