Mazda3

fowler3 · March 2005

they are not like the other car test magazines, they do not disclose who the testers are. How they drive the cars, if they are professional drivers or office staff. This is why I have never put much faith in CR's reports.

Of course, the failing cars have were tested by another organization, which takes it out of CR's hands.

I do know that I have avoided accidents driving small cars which would have been fatal if I had been driving something larger. One was driving up an embankment to avoid a head-on with a huge dump truck rounding a curve on my side of the road at high speed. It was so close that if I had been driving a large American car the truck would have gotten the back half. Being able to scoot out of the way is very important.

fowler3

backy · March 2005

How they drive the cars, if they are professional drivers or office staff.

According to CR's April 2005 issue, they test cars using "a team of full-time engineers, technicians, and support staff." I guess that makes them both office staff, and professional drivers (since they are paid to drive and test cars).

npaladin2000 · March 2005

The acid test will be if they recommend a car with superior accident avoidance but that does only so-so or less in a crash test.

I find it interesting how they're willing to rate our poor Mazda3 Not Acceptable because a crash test dummy is stupid enough to sit there in the car while an SUV sized barrier is headed for him, without stepping on the gas and maneuvering, or jumping out of the car before it hits.

autonomous · March 2005

Backy is correct; I would simply add that Consumer Reports is one of the few sources of independent testing in the marketplace. Don't we all want independent testing of vehicles?

Having car ratings provided by staff of commercial magazines which benefit from advertizing by car companies is obviously troublesome if not in a direct conflict of interest. Some of these staff appear to be professionally trained, but considering that the vast majority of drivers are not going out on race tracks to test their abilities it would be preferable to have a team of specialized and regular testers. Let me illustrate by referring to one of my favorite sources of auto information. In Canada one TV show, RPM, does weekly comparisons between two similar models (e.g. two SUVs) by showing many aspects of the car that you as a driver may not see before purchasing. For example, they compare the undersides of the cars to illustrate how protected the cars are or are not; this is vital information for a buyer especially while frostbite and roadsalt rule the land. I am regularly amazed at how sloppy car manufacturers continue to be by penny pinching and improper placement of components. In one episode the auto tech was showing how one electrical, heat-sensitive component was placed over another heat-generating component; the commentator remarked it would not be surprising if problems emerged there in the near future. So, to what is this all leading? Well, here's the punchline: the show is sponsored by a commercial firm known across the country (rhymes with canadian wire) and the auto tech and all the other experts except the commentator wear the official company uniform and the interior tests take place in the garages of that company. So what am I as a lowly consumer supposed to think of a large national autosupply "supporting" a TV auto show but at the same time selling me products? Is this an independent source or is it beholden to some suppliers or manufacturers of their parts/services? My answer: I continue to watch with my wits about me!

There are some who don't trust government ratings, but as we know it was the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) that conducted this last spate of tests. The fact that after having released its Annual Auto issue recently, Consumer Reports quickly amended the story by broadcasting a press release about the IIHS findings and demoting many of its formerly recommended models is a credit to CR.

Hats off to Consumer Reports!

backy · March 2005

I find it interesting how they're willing to rate our poor Mazda3 Not Acceptable because a crash test dummy is stupid enough to sit there in the car while an SUV sized barrier is headed for him, without stepping on the gas and maneuvering, or jumping out of the car before it hits.

Yeah, and how about those stupid frontal crash tests? Why doesn't the crash test dummy just steer around the obstacle? The dummy in the IIHS test is apparently a better driver than the one in the NHTSA test; in the IIHS test, at least the dummy clears part of the obstacle before hitting hit. Why do crash tests at all? Why can't people just step on the gas, or jump out of their cars before they hit something?

An example where CR recommended a car with superior accident avoidance but with a terrible crash test result was when they recommended the 2004 Ford Focus ZX3, which received only one star in the NHTSA's side impact crash test for rear seat passengers.

combustible1 · March 2005

I'm not sure if people are serious or kidding when talking about jumping out of their cars in an emergency situation. Like anybody is going to be able to make such a quick and radical decision in the heat and panic of a very short accident timeframe. Best you can hope for is to keep your wits about you and attempt to steer around or minimize the impact the best you can if you don't have enough time to maneuver(sp?) around it.

What I'd really like to know is if anyone has done a statistical comparison weighing ease of manuverability factors for accident avoidance (good handling, small car size, etc.) vs. safety features (heavier weight, higher driver position, air bags, etc.) built into cars, comparing how those comparitive factors play out in an overall probability equation, which balances the two categories by also factoring in severity of injury.

In other words, let's say the analysis shows that you are avoiding dangerous accident situations 12% more in a small, highly manueverable car, yet on average, you would sustain 37% more injury when you do get into an accident. Then relate this data to one another in an ultimate cost/benefit analysis.. I wonder which kind of cars, as a category (SUVs, large sedans, small coupes, etc.) would come out ahead?

npaladin2000 · March 2005

I think that would be an interesting study and the results would definitely be of interest to us, the buying public. However, depending on how the tests come out, those who make a living selling airbag doo-dads and DSC system thingamijigs might not be so happy about seeing those results. And since car dealers make money off of such gadgetry, I doubt they want anyone to know the answer either should it go against them.

Which means unless a completely independent organization (possibly the IIHS) does this study and publishes the results, we'll never see them. Because something tells me they're sitting locked away in a car manufacturer's secret files, because letting the results out would cause a downturn in the sale of safety devices. Like ABS that has recently gone from standard to optional on GM cars, for instance. Or a stability control system that was rendered unavailable on a previous generation Ford Focus. I take these manufacturer decisions as hints. Besides, they're worth more money as options.

robr2 · March 2005

What I'd really like to know is if anyone has done a statistical comparison weighing ease of manuverability factors for accident avoidance (good handling, small car size, etc.) vs. safety features (heavier weight, higher driver position, air bags, etc.) built into cars, comparing how those comparitive factors play out in an overall probability equation, which balances the two categories by also factoring in severity of injury.

IMHO, that study would be an impossibility. Everything in such a test could be standardized except for the most import: driver reactions.

Everyone of us is different. Some may do nothing. Some may swerve. Some may brake. Some may cover their faces.

backy · March 2005

Based on recent events (e.g. only two small cars getting an acceptable rating on a crash test), I think we are going to see a reversal of this trend by some automakers to take safety features out of cars. Some other recent events...

* Honda announces they will have SABs, SACs, and ABS standard on all vehicles sold in the U.S. by YE 2006.

* Toyota offers VSC in the Corolla, and makes it standard on the $14k Scion xB.

* Kia puts SABs, SACs, and 4-wheel disc brakes standard on its $13k Spectra.

* Hyundai puts SABs, SACs, ABS/traction, and VSC standard on its $17k Tucson. Kia does the same thing with its $15,900 Sportage, a cousin of the Tucson.

* Hyundai announces that SABs, SACs, ABS, and VSC will be standard on its $18k '06 Sonata.

* Kia announces that SABs and SACs will be standard on the '06 Rio--one of the lowest priced cars sold in the U.S.--and on the '06 Sedona.

cti · March 2005

I was reading the IIHS wesbite regarding the latest side airbag tests.

After reading it I read an article about how much vehicle stability control reduces accidents. Seems that VSC would drastically reduce single vehicle accidents - by 41%!

It reduced multi-vehicle accidents by 7% and, I believe, overall accidents by 13%.

I don't know if (or by how much) insurance companies reduce rates for cars with VSC, but my insurance company, Progressive, doesn't reduce insurance for cars with side air bags.

Jason

z71bill · March 2005

Of course it depends on your individual insurance policy - but many auto policies have very low limits (max amount that they will pay)on personal injury claims - for the people riding in your vehicle. Most of the personal injury protection & premium dollars - will be for the people that your car hits (if it is your fault) - and an air bag in your car will not do anything to reduce that cost.

Also air bags cost $ to replace so when you are in a accident and the air bag goes off the insurance company will pay out more.

fowler3 · March 2005

"In other words, let's say the analysis shows that you are avoiding dangerous accident situations 12% more in a small, highly manueverable car, yet on average, you would sustain 37% more injury when you do get into an accident. Then relate this data to one another in an ultimate cost/benefit analysis.. I wonder which kind of cars, as a category (SUVs, large sedans, small coupes, etc.) would come out ahead?"

It would be hard to come up with a test for average.

This example is one: I was in a rear-ender in 1992, sitting at the end of a line of cars waiting at a traffic light. A 1992 Buick Park Avenue on the down-side of an overpass ramp at 45mph rear-ended my '86 Accord. I pumped my brakes to flash the rear lamps hoping the driver would see them. He was more interested in looking at the countryside instead of the road, realizing only moments before impact that he could not stop in time. I started to pull out of line but there wasn't enough space for me to clear the car in front of me. (Now I leave enough space!) The impact was devistating to the Accord, which wasn't much larger than current compacts. The rear fenders crumpled, the spare tire under the trunk floor was shoved forward dislodging the fuel tank sending it under the car to come to rest under the engine. The back seats were pushed against the front ones. And the whole car was pushed into the car in front of me crushing the grille and front fenders. It was totaled for sure BUT...I walked away un-injured, except for whiplash neck pain the next day. The design of that Accord did exactly what it was suppose to do -- crumple to absorb the impact.

Interesting thing: 1992 was the first year Buick installed air bags in their cars. That was a frontal impact for the Park Avenue and the air bag DID NOT deploy! Hmmm Maybe it deploys ONLY at 35mph, at other speeds drivers are on their own.

I had a friend who survived a bad crash in a Porsche 914 coupe, he rolled it he hard way -- end-over-end. The 914 crumpled into a ball trapping him inside. Rescuers cut him out. He had only a broken collar bone. The car took the impact.

Don't hope to save the car -- hope to save yourself. Pilots are trained to do anything to survive even if the plane is destroyed. In an emergency landing they are taught to go between trees to knock the wings off to slow the plane down. It also removes the fuel tanks away from the engine.

In any crash situation, if you can manuver your car in to a position that will minimize the impact DO SO.

fowler3

backy · March 2005

Back when we didn't have all these 3 letter acronyms, a majority of drivers were not commuting in 5000-pound SUVs and trucks either--more a factor I think than today's safety features. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never once thought, "I can drive however I want because I have these airbags and ABS to keep me safe." But then, I've always had small cars for my personal vehicle.

autonomous · March 2005

You're all right!

Fowler is right to say "In any crash situation, if you can manuver your car in to a position that will minimize the impact DO SO." I would add that one should always "open" up the traffic and try to create yourself and others an escape route. It's amazing how many drivers accelerate by exits and entrances to avoid letting someone else enter or exit ahead of them: that's a disaster waiting to happen.

Bryan is right when he says "Many (drivers) ... are too busy looking at the scenery ... chatting on cellphones while drinking their coffee, then reading the "Caution: HOT" label on it, and incidentally, also programming their nav systems with their free toes." In Canada some coffee houses have taken the labels one step further: you can win a prize by rolling up the rim, I wonder how many free visits to the garage this has generated

I agree with Backy in that I've never once thought, "I can drive however I want because I have these airbags and ABS to keep me safe."

Kirstie_H · March 2005

Don't forget tonight's member-to-member chat - it's open mic night, so come and discuss whatever's on your mind.

http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/townhallchat.html

6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!

kirstie_h

npaladin2000 · March 2005

"I agree with Backy in that I've never once thought, "I can drive however I want because I have these airbags and ABS to keep me safe.""

I never thought that either. But just like everyone else, I've always driven small cars. However, I DO know people who have either said or implied that to me.

Incidentally, my original post had to be edited for content. I thought I had censored it enough, but apparently not.

So here goes:

#8154 of 8156 Re: My reply: [fowler3] by npaladin2000 Mar 16, 2005 (5:40 am)

"In any crash situation, if you can manuver your car in to a position that will minimize the impact DO SO."

My problem is that people DON'T "do so." Many of them, as you said, are too busy looking at the scenery.

If not that then they're chatting on cellphones while drinking their coffee, then reading the "Caution: HOT" label on it, and incidentally, also programming their nav systems with their free toes.

The MAIN reason I think people do these things is because they expect all of this new gadetry to keep them safe, thereby relieving them of the responsibility of paying attention, avoiding accidents, and generally not driving like indecent jerks. After all, they've got 12 thousand airbags, and surely the ABS, DSC, TCS, AWD, FUD, and BUL will keep them from being hurt if that other guy is silly enough to not get out of the way because he's too busy eating a donut while looking things up on his PDA while re-loading his CD changer at 90 MPH, right?

Hence the conclusion that all of these wonderful gadgets in cars probably cause more accidents. Back when we didn't have all of these 3 letter acronym systems, people likely were more worried about hitting someone, and thereby paid more attention.

barson · March 2005

I test-drove a Mazda3 2.0L/manual transmission today, and I was quite favorably impressed. It handled and accelerated well, and felt comfortable to drive.

I am shopping for a car that is safe, has high mileage, and is fun to drive -- something to replace the 1990 Subaru Legacy wagon that I own now, which has close to 300K miles on it. I have a 45 minute commute, mostly flat highway. It's nice to have Subaru's all-wheel drive, but since snow/ice only occurs 2-3 times per year here, it's not an absolute necessity.

I've been looking at small- and mid-size sedans, and so far I've driven Civic, Accord, Camry, Corolla, Sonata, and Elantra, mostly with manual transmissions.

The Hondas have a very impressive feel -- like precision-designed machines. Very tight steering, etc. The Hyundai steering felt less tight, the cars don't feel as quick to respond, but still good. The Corolla that I drove today was remarkably unimpressive -- a "sport" package with a low-geared 6 speed transmission. I was always revving the engine when upshifting; it was a pain trying to figure out the proper RPM to shift. The Camry felt like a safe, reliable, but boring family car -- a modern Japanese version of a 1960s Oldsmobile.

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts (positive or negative) on the Mazda3 in comparison to these other cars. For example, does the Volvo chassis really contribute to the 3's safety? Crash tests rate the 3 lower than the Corolla for safety, but the 3 is available with optional side curtain airbags.

dudleyr · March 2005

It seems to me the 3 would best suit your needs. It is roomier and sportier than corolla etc. and much more efficient than Camry and Accord.

For the winter time you can buy a set of 4 snow tires with steel rims for about $400. If you don't want to do that Nokian makes the only all season tire that is rated for severe snow service.

http://www.nokian.com/passengercars_product_en?product=610503&name=NOKIAN+WR#

barson · March 2005

Interestingly, the dealer's MSRP on a new 3i manual transmission with ABS/side curtain airbags was $15,900. CarMax lists 2004 automatic 3is with low mileage for basically the same price. Even factoring in the dealer's taxes and fees on a new car, the CarMax price isn't much of a savings. I'd prefer the manual transmission to get better mileage and lower repair bills, plus the new car has more warranty.

gee35coupe · March 2005

aren't very good for newer popular vehicles. There just isn't enough depraciation to make them profitable.

z71bill · March 2005

You would be much better off with a 2005 model - some of the 2004 cars have major problems that Mazda will not fix - I think that most of the defects have been fixed on the 2005 cars - but not sure if anyone has really tested the AC system on the 2005 yet - 95 degree day with high humidity in heavy stop & go traffic.

Since Honda is coming out with a completely new 2006 Civic in the fall (I think) - You could wait a few months and get a really great deal on a leftover 2005 - or be the first to have the 2006.

fowler3 · March 2005

I agree with your posts, and I have never thought of the safety devices as iron-clad assurance that I am safe at any speed and in any situation. On the contrary, air bags are just another device waiting to hit me in the face. I'm serious!

Your description of an inattentive driver is very close to reality: the other day a girl was behind me in a mini-van talking on her cell phone and brushing her hair with the other hand. Totally oblivious to traffic around her as she tailgated my car. I braked lightly to flash my taillamps and she still didn't react. Speeding up, I gave a right turn signal and pulled off the road to let the idiot go by. She ran a red light just ahead.

Barson: All are good cars, what is best for your needs and what you like to drive is up to you. I would look at the 2005 Mazda3 now, not the first year models. Mazda knows about the A/C problems, they may have fixed them, but as Mazda said in another publication, "We did not give regional considerations to the MZ3 it was designed as a World Car." But they will give regional requirements more attention in the re-design of the Mazda3. In other words, the current car was designed mainly for Europe, Japan, and South East Asia. And get the Power Option, which is now $1400, you will wish you had in the long run. Also the ABS with sab/swc. The options for the "i" bring it close to the 3s model. When crank window handles were metal they were good, now that they are plastic I would go for power versions which are a safety feature and add a lot to resale value.

It's a pitty they didn't use the A/C unit supplier for the Protegé, which is excellent. I still think it is an assembly problem since some work and others do not.

fowler3

groovypippin · March 2005

I have heard some tid-bits about changes coming to the 2006 Mazda3.

Looks like the car wil be receiving a 5-speed automatic. Not sure if that will be for both the 2.0 and the 2.3. I suspect it will only be for the 2.3L

npaladin2000 · March 2005

Aww, I'd love to have a 5 speed...too bad there's no way I could have waited.

autonomous · March 2005

I agree that would be great news, Jamie. Was the source a Mazda rep?

barson · March 2005

Does anyone know if the air conditioning problems reported in the 04 have been fixed for the 05? It gets hot here in the summer . . .

When I was on the Mazda lot, I noticed that the 3 that I was about to test drive had what looked like a continuous coat of rust on the brake disks. I looked at other 3s nearby, same thing. On the test drive there was a grinding sound when I applied the brakes; the salesman said that the sound was caused by rust and that the rust would wear off as the brakes were used. I've never seen/driven a new vehicle with rusty brakes before. Is this common? I would think it would shorten the life of the brake pads.

robr2 · March 2005

The rust on the brake rotors is common. I get it on both my Accords and see it our sales reps cars who travel and leave their cars in the lot for days at a time.

When you step on the brakes the first time, the friction from the pads removes the rust. It shouldn't shorten the life of the pads. It typically forms in high humidity or when you don't drive the vehicle for a few days.

jrct9454 · March 2005

Yep. Every new car lot I've been around, and I've walked hundreds, has row upon row of cars with rusty rotors. This is what happens naturally in any situation where there is any amount of moisture around, and the cars aren't driven for a few days. As noted, as soon as the brakes are used the first time, at the expense of a bit of grinding feel through the pedal, the rust is scraped off. Nothing to be concerned about.

npaladin2000 · March 2005

Sometimes it happens the morning after the carwash too, just to warn you

z71bill · March 2005

No matter how many people say that the AC in their Mazda3 works great I would not buy one until I could take a test drive in stop and go traffic - in the car I was going to buy - on a very hot & SUNNY day. I would make sure the car had been sitting in the sun for an hour or so before the test drive - then you can see how long it takes for the car to cool down. If it cools off to your satisfaction then buy it - if the AC seems weak and will not cool the car then RUN while you can.

I was concerned the car we wanted - black car with black interior - would have a good enough AC - so during the test drives we paid special attention to it - and I still got burned. It was around 80 degrees - AC worked fine - little did I know that the AC (in my car anyway) will just barely keep up on an 85 degree day - throw in some bright sun and some stop and go traffic and the AC is just not strong enough to cool the car.

If you do buy a car with a weak AC Mazda will not fix the problem. They treat it just like all the other problems - they claim it is operating as designed and within specification.

After your test drive the rust should have been gone from the rotors. The grinding noise is normal on the first few stops with rust on the rotors - but after a few stops if the brakes still make a grinding noise then IMO that is not normal.

I can speak from experience since I have both the defective AC and grinding (rear) brakes -

Good luck.

autonomous · March 2005

"I was concerned the car we wanted - black car with black interior - would have a good enough AC - so during the test drives we paid special attention to it - and I still got burned. It was around 80 degrees - AC worked fine - little did I know that the AC (in my car anyway) will just barely keep up on an 85 degree day - throw in some bright sun and some stop and go traffic and the AC is just not strong enough to cool the car."

Sounds like a reasonable test to me, Bill, especially if you live in a southern state. But 80 degrees in Texas, wouldn't that rate as a warm day and only if you hit 90 would you call it hot?

You say "black interior", is that black leather?

p.s. Up here in Ottawa (Canada) it's humidity that's the killer; my P5's AC has so far handled it well.

z71bill · March 2005

Planned on getting the leather - but once we saw it - and the cloth - side by side we changed our minds and went with the cloth. Very glad we did not considering how hot the car would be with leather seats.

80 degrees in Houston is not considered a hot day - but the AC seemed to do a pretty good job of cooling the car during our test drives - after one test drive we even sat in the car for 15 minutes or so at idle just to see if the AC would keep the car cool in this situation. It did - so we didn't give it a second thought - just expecting the AC to be strong enough to do its job.

autonomous · March 2005

Planned on getting the leather - but once we saw it - and the cloth - side by side we changed our minds and went with the cloth. Very glad we did not considering how hot the car would be with leather seats.

Agreed!

PF_Flyer · March 2005

Stop in and meet and greet some of your fellow Mazda enthusiasts at our weekly chat session. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

The MAZDA MANIA Chat is on tonight. Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

barry42 · March 2005

I have been invited by my friendly dealer to come down and place my order for a 2006 sedan for my wife -- I already have my 2005 HB !!
He can't tell me what changes there will be to the car but, the price will go up $200 !!
I hope it has the 5 speed auto that you mentioned these poor little 1.6L motors we get needs all the help it can get !!

Thanks for the rumor !! Barry.

beta23 · March 2005

mazda 3 sedan w/ or without spoiler?? wats hotter

eklektik · March 2005

when I first bought my silver sedan, it did't have a spoiler, I had wanted one, but the dealer couldn't locate a car with one. The car looked fine without the spoiler, so I bought the car. After two months, I changed my mind and added the wing spoiler. Eight months later I still believe the car looks better with it.

mdaffron · March 2005

But it's good to see that someone still believes in the 3 after the side-impact issue.

http://www.aaamidatlantic.com/safety/release_content.asp?id=2009

Meade

combustible1 · March 2005

For me, the lip spoiler looks classier and the wing is sportier. Depends on what look you're going for. I prefer the lip, as it also extends the back edge of the trunk out just a little bit, which helps minimize the rear bumper that sticks out halfway to Cleveland.

nicola · March 2005

i am looking for a 2004 mazda3i and live in utah. we get a fair amount of snow here, and i am just now hearing that snow handling isn't great on this car. is it something that should deter me from buying it?

npaladin2000 · March 2005

Well, I have a 3s hatch, and the snow handling started off pretty rotten. But it's mostly due to the OEM tires, which are FAR less than ideal for snow. They call them "all season" but what they REALLy mean is "all seasons that don't have anything to do with snow" heh.

Anyway, a set of snow tires really did wonders. it'll never be as good in snow as my old V6 Chevy but that had a heavy iron-block V6 holding the drive-wheels down, where as the Mazda's got a tiny aluminum 4. But once the OEM tires were replaced, snow traction was certainly servicable, even if it's not as good an an AWD/4WD vehicle.

nicola · March 2005

thanks for the quick response--

excuse my ignorance, but what kind of prices are we talking with snow tires? i am just graduating from college and am on a fairly tight budget and want to make sure i'm not walking into a lot of additional money...

thanks again.

npaladin2000 · March 2005

You'll have an easier time than I did...the i model uses smaller 15 inch wheels, and snow tires are common in that size. You should be able to get a set for under $400. I had to pay $500 because snows aren't common in Mazda's 17 inch size.

cti · March 2005

Would it be possible to get a compatible 16 inch tire? Just buy one that isn't as low profile.

Might be cheaper/more readily available.

Jason

jrct9454 · March 2005

When the next snow season looms, call TireRack and ask them to put together a tire/wheel package for your car, with steel wheels, snow tires, and wheel covers. They should have complete packages for the 3i that won't exceed $500, and you avoid the expense of mounting and dismounting the tires from your OEM wheels. They might even have a cheap alloy design that can be used with the snows, but those tend to get closer to $600 for a set of four.

Doesn't matter whether your OEM tire was 15" or 16" or 17" - they will have a combination that can work.

beta23 · March 2005

ive been reading about the lack of traction in the snow with the stock tires on alot of sites as well. Im assuming that I would definitely need to buy snow tires for the mazda 3

But the question is, with the snow tires, is the car safe enough in the snow, how good is it with these snow tires?

dudleyr · March 2005

The car will be fine with snows - probably better than any other fwd without snows, and better than many awds for that matter. Remember that awd does not help you stop and snow tires will. If you can't go you are stuck and that may be inconvenient, but if you can't stop you hit something and that is much worse.

beta23 · April 2005

I am going to college in a year up north somewhere (so snow is a factor) and I have 2 choices for a car. I already asked this in the BMW forums but i want to see what you mazda people think. I can either take my dads 2002 BMW 325 xi or buy a new 2005 mazda 3 sp23. The BMW has 45000 miles on it with no major problems and my dad is a conservative driver.

Which car do you think i should get (cost is about the same for me) taking into consideration: reliability, performance, safety, utility and value in 5 years from now.

backy · April 2005

Let me get this straight... you are undecided whether to take your dad's 3-year-old AWD BMW, the Ultimate Driving Machine, a near-luxury compact that has no major problems and a known (good) history, or a FWD car that is a gussied-up version of a car designed to sell for as little as $14,000? This is a HARD decision for you?

Take the Bimmer and run!

beta23 · April 2005

hahaha.... yea great point

Mazda3

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles