Mazdaspeed3 vs. VW V GTI vs. Civic Si

aviboy97 · April 2007

I was amazed when I saw that the Rabbit was $3,000 cheaper!

I think not. A 4 door Rabbit 2.5 w/ cloth interior 17" wheels, moon roof, 5-speed transmission without destination is $19,242.

A Mazda3 s Touring with cloth interior, moon roof/6CD package (17" wheels std.) is $19,215 less destination.

The Mazdaspeed3 Sport is $22,240 and the GT is $23,995. Both less destination. The GTI 4 door with 18" and cloth seats is $24,508, and with leather and 18" wheels is $27,668. The Mazdaspeed3 has 18"s standard. I tried to equip both vehicles the same. To me, it looks like the Mazdaspeed3 is a bit cheaper. Can we say "Mazdaspeed3 is the better buy"?? Maybe, maybe not.

Any way you look at it, comparably equipped, the Mazdaspeed3 is less expensive, faster, handles better. If you want to pay more the a little nicer interior, be my guest.

I dunno where you found a $3000 difference. It is not fair to compare different trim levels and then claim that the Rabbit is $3000 cheaper, therefore it is the better buy. You are not helping anyone here by doing that.

eldaino · April 2007

you don't have to equip it with 17's. I don't belive that he specified if his rabbit was a 2 or 4 door, or if it had 17's.

I've seen 4 doors for 18k w/alloys which is still cheaper than the 3 hatch, but the 3k difference must be a 2 door.

Even then, the 2 door at a meager 15-16k has a more upscale interior.

eldaino · April 2007

love the car, no problems, live in salisbury nc and drive to concord every morning.

aviboy97 · April 2007

The problem is, we have no idea what models he was comparing?? I compared both vehicles with similar equipment When they are comparably equipped, they are the same price.

You can easily get a Mazda3 for $15,000 as well...

blueguydotcom · April 2007

A Mazda3 hatch starts at $18275. The 4 door Rabbit hatch starts at $17110. Off the bat the blooming Rabbit 4 door is obviously cheaper.

PF_Flyer · April 2007

Feel free to bring this discussion the the chat tonight. We almost always wind up talking car comparisions!

The Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

silvermzda3 · April 2007

i was looking at the GTI and the rabbit and one thing i had to consider is that the VW dealers (2 of them) were offering me $2k less for my trade than the mazda dealer because they used an outside buyer to purchase non VW trade ins.

blueguydotcom · April 2007

That's kinda an outlier. I mean my fiancee gets S-plan pricing but I'm not going to say the Mazda 3 hatch is then automatically cheaper.

rorr · April 2007

"A Mazda3 hatch starts at $18275. The 4 door Rabbit hatch starts at $17110. Off the bat the blooming Rabbit 4 door is obviously cheaper."

The MSRP on the Mazda3 5-door sport is $17,680. Dest. is $595. Total is $18,275.

The MSRP on the base Rabbit 4-door is $17,110. Dest. is $640. Total is $17,750. Interesting that you compared the price of the base Mazda3 WITH destination vs. the price of the base Rabbit withOUT destination....

Edmunds TMV for these two vehicles is $17,178 for the Mazda3 and $16,946 for the Rabbit (a difference of $232).

B F D

Now, FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD, can we STOP discussing base Rabbits and Mazda3 and Civics and Sentras and Corollas etc etc etc in a thread that is SUPPOSED to be about the HOTTEST versions available?

eldaino · April 2007

ha! agreed.

but...

The MSRP on the Mazda3 5-door sport is $17,680. Dest. is $595. Total is $18,275.

The MSRP on the base Rabbit 4-door is $17,110. Dest. is $640. Total is $17,750. Interesting that you compared the price of the base Mazda3 WITH destination vs. the price of the base Rabbit withOUT destination....

...even though he did do this, even with the destination factored in...its still techically cheaper.

and for the sake of the thread;

the si is wound up and poised

the gti is direct and smooth

the mazdaspeed is just nuts.

blueguydotcom · April 2007

I opened the Mazda and VW sites and grabbed the numbers listed for both cars. I didn't bother building either car so if that's the case, my apologies. Regardless, for driving the Mazda car is better; for those wanting the car to feel like something solid and nice, the VW in a landslide. My opinion.

As for the hottest versions, same thing. The Mazdaspeed3 is great if you want hardcore driving. If you want luxury or refinement and something that feels like money, GTI.

eldaino · April 2007

nice sum up.

carfanatic007 · April 2007

And if you want the funnest ride with crazy revs to 8,500 rpm and great handling, and the best resale value, go with the SI. :P

aviboy97 · April 2007

I don't think "funnest" is even a word, but, whatever. I'm not sure how 8,500 rpm's translates into "funnest" ride. I think fast, handling, loads of horsepower and torque, and tight translates into most fun to drive. But, thats me.

Too early to tell what resale value will be.

blueguydotcom · April 2007

If you want loud boy racer, with zero torque, lousy interior materials, high resale and not even the simplest of accoutrement (like xenons), go for the Si. Happy?

vviley · April 2007

Have you ever considered a situation where having way to much torque is a bad thing? I had the "pleasure" of driving a Speed3 during a midwest winter for a bit and was totally frustrated by having to focus less on driving and more on keeping the wheels from breaking free in low gears.

Also, I'm generally not as much of a fan of coming across HID's on 2-lane backroads. They can make a real hassle of spotting (see: staying on) the road.

Just saying that all the bells and whistles might not be the best suit for everyone for all the situations they'll encounter.

blueguydotcom · April 2007

Have you ever considered a situation where having way to much torque is a bad thing? I had the "pleasure" of driving a Speed3 during a midwest winter for a bit and was totally frustrated by having to focus less on driving and more on keeping the wheels from breaking free in low gears.

That's a symptom of a few things:

1. Wrong tires
2. FWD
3. Heavy right foot

Also, I'm generally not as much of a fan of coming across HID's on 2-lane backroads. They can make a real hassle of spotting (see: staying on) the road.

I believe this is a personal thing. My fiancee, sister and others with blue eyes swear xenons hurt their eyes. I can stare directly at xenons and not have an issue. Ditto their love of auto-dimming mirrors while I totally hate them. To each his own.

Just saying that all the bells and whistles might not be the best suit for everyone for all the situations they'll encounter.

You may be the first person to ever hint that it's possible to have too much torque or too much power - with a car that's a manual and that you don't need to use all the power on.

vviley · April 2007

For the most part, I agree. I'm not attempting to make a lot of excuses for myself or anyone else. But for the Speed3, you can't do much about making it anything but FWD, and when the stock tires are summer tires, it adds one more hassle and cost to making the car useful in colder climates.

autonomous · April 2007

when the stock tires are summer tires, it adds one more hassle and cost to making the car useful in colder climates.

These days most cars, and not only the Mazdaspeed3, would benefit from snow tires in colder climates. You're right it is one more hassle but winter tires extend the life of your summer tires.

blueguydotcom · April 2007

when the stock tires are summer tires, it adds one more hassle and cost to making the car useful in colder climates.

The people I know in snowy climates tend to swap their tires no matter what. Winter = winter tires. Sort of the cost of car ownership.

aviboy97 · April 2007

If you live in an area where winter is a concern, then maybe performance vehicles should not be your primary driver in the winter! Buy a cheap FWD/AWD/4X4 vehicle just for the winter.

I have a 1992 Mustang GT, and I don't drive it in the winter (well, right now I'm doing work to it, so I'm not driving it anyway).

vviley · April 2007

I just opted for the Si, a tamer 'performance' car. But I was seriously considering a Speed3 for quite a while, until I decided that as my only car, it would make the winters more frustrating than I was willing to deal with. (Plus, I wasn't a big fan of the gauge cluster, but that's another matter altogether.)

carfanatic007 · April 2007

You made a wise choice Wiley, welcome to the SI family! Don't pay attention to the others, they don't like fun cars just high pitched headlights and leather seats!

eldaino · April 2007

um, no not really. I like the si just as much as anyone here and am not willing to hate on it because i think it is a nice car, WILL have a high resale, has great interior materials and IS fun to drive.

Personally, i don't understand why you WOULDN"T want a heavy foot with a car like the ms3 with that much hp and tq.

Kinda negates the whole purpose of it otherwise eh?

But NOT having an si does not mean not liking fun cars.

How can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously if you are going to stay perched atop your si soap box?

aviboy97 · April 2007

eldaino,

I have come to the conclusion that carfanatic007 really is not worth responding to. His post's are not helpful to anyone, and are quite inaccurate most of the time. Personally, I believe he should be posting on civicsi.com, or, other boards where verbal nonsense is tolerated.

eldaino · April 2007

Ha! Very true!

Although i wont deny that many people on vwvortex will diss hondas, (no torque, too much hp blah blah blah) and be rather eerily accepting towards reliability issues.

I think i'll ignore him from now on too.

aviboy97 · April 2007

I've been on that site before, and clubRSX.com is another just like it. I commonly see "well, a Honda can take any vehicle on from a 30mph roll"...yadda yadda yadda...

I am open and respect everyones opinions on every car, and I may differ from time to time, but, I believe it is important to also have some useful body to what you post.

pat · April 2007

Let's not make this about each other.

carfanatic007 · April 2007

Geez, I'm being ganged up on because I have a positive opinion on the SI? It's okay for Blue to have a positive opinion on his cars, and call the SI a piece of garbage, but my opinion rates nothing? I thought that this is what this forum was for, expressing YOUR opinion. If you don't agree with me, I could care less, but at least give me the respect that I have my own opinion. Don't act like some know it all.

pat · April 2007

It is indeed for expressing your opinion. Everyone is welcome to keep on expressing their opinions about the topic subject which is the cars... not each other.

Let's move on, okay?

eldaino · April 2007

well, there is no first drive for it, and since this comparo is about the hottest versions of each car, here goes;

it seems like the jdm type r is one of the sharpest handling fwd cars ever made.

I'd take this over anything here. One thing is almost 100 hp per litre, but OVER 100hp per litre?!!! From an N/A 2.0? There is no denying that this is some incredible enginering, wether high redlines are your thing or not.

And if it was just 25k here? Thats just a tiny bit more than some mazdaspeeds and cheaper than a lot of gti's!

This thing is still on the low end of the torque spectrum, but still has more than a reg. mazda 3, which we all agree pulls nicely.

I was doing some thinking; the euro spec type r runs to 60 in about 6.5 seconds and this thing is more powerful and weighs exactly the same... an almost 6.0 0-60? Anyway you look at it, this is amazing.

To be able to say my 222 hp n/a is about as fast as your 263 turbo is pretty awesome. (and yet shameful!)

aviboy97 · April 2007

To be able to say my 222 hp n/a is about as fast as your 263 turbo is pretty awesome. (and yet shameful!)

Well, 6.5 to 60 is very respectable, however, the Mazdaspeed3 has had times at 5.5. My guess is the Civic Type-R will do the 1/4 mile in near 14 sec flat. Very respectable as well.

According to many, the best handling FWD car ever built to this day is still the DC2 Integra Type-R. What a car for it's day.

eldaino · April 2007

true dat! the integra was quite a handler. The new civic type r is suppossed to be even better, while still offering creature comforts that the integra had to do without.

as much as i love the jdm sedan, i must say that the inferior (performance wise) hatch in europe is still one mean looking car!

acunning1 · May 2007

OK; I own variants of two of these cars; an 02 RSX type S and an 07 Mk V GTI. I have driven the new Si (feels like the RSX) and I have only sat in the Mazda but have driven the unblown sibling. Therefore I cannot speak to the Mazda and have to concede that it apears to be a formidable opponent in this class. For everyday driving and fun factor and no offense to the Mazderati the GTI is by far the hands down gotta have vehicle. This car is awfully easy to drive at the limit, fantastic response on the track and a well put together interior that shames a lot of cars in this price range.
I cannot speak to the reliability, however I doubt most of you interested in this group place this first and foremost. For most of us we will move on in a while toward the next big thing that whets our appetite either in this class or another. I have had only minor problems with the Honda (O2 sensor and Catalytic Converter)and touch wood none with the VW.

As a side note I felt compelled to add to this discusion after a particularly insane session with the GTI that honestly would have upset the Honda's rear end...

4570sharps · May 2007

I have to agree with acunning1. Yes the Mazdaspeed3 (and WRX) certainly will beat the GTI in strictly acceleration and the Mazda has a nice Look at Me styling thing going on. I dont know about cornering / handling at the limit which can be subjective. During a test drives its hard to judge that sort of thing. However what was apparent was how much nicer the interior is on the GTI. The whole feel of the GTI is more substantial somehow. Closing the door between the two is night and day. The suspension, in my judgment, is a little softer / composed over the rough bits of the road and with the DSG the GTI is the obvious choice for commuting in traffic. Dont get me wrong, I liked the Mazda, but its 100% all the time nature will get a little old for old folks like me. So I decided to purchase the GTI.

Viva la Fast

blueguydotcom · May 2007

Heck, the regular Mazda3's handling is about matched to the GTI. The speed3's handling is near the SI's but it's got far more power to burn.

If you're tracking often, the Speed3 is the easy choice. Mixed duty, the GTI is the easier car to live with on a daily basis.

carfanatic007 · May 2007

:shades: The SI is by far the best handling of the 3. If you know how to drive and shift, it is BY FAR the most fun of the three to drive. It is also the most reliable and has the best resale of the three. :shades:

blueguydotcom · May 2007

Car, the tests prove otherwise and any driver with some track training would prove it too. Unless it's a boring super tight track without straights, the MS3 will win. Yeah, you get on a lame AutoX track that lacks long straights, then the lighter, LSD-equipped Si will win. A real track like Willow or Laguna and that Si gets dusted off without a second thought.

aviboy97 · May 2007

The SI is by far the best handling of the 3.

There have been many tests that show the Si is not the "best handling by far". Check out the test done by this site, and the MS3 won.

Best resale is yet to be seen.

Most fun to drive is purely subjective, and each have their own opinion. There are some that may say a mini van is more fun to drive then any of the three.

eldaino · May 2007

while i do think the si is a great fwd handling car, the hardcore suspension and massive tires of the ms3 do edge it out.

Perhaps the si is more 'tossable'? that usually makes people feel their car handles well, or at least better than most. A lighter car will always feel like the better handler, even if the nubmers say otherwise.

aviboy97 · May 2007

A lighter car will always feel like the better handler, even if the numbers say otherwise.

True. That can be attributed to weight transfer. The lighter the car, the less weight to transfer and it feels as it handles better. Not always the case. It is an illusion some of the time.

That is why most smaller cars appear to handle better then larger sedans. It is true in many cases, but, not all.

autonomous · May 2007

That can be attributed to weight transfer. The lighter the car, the less weight to transfer and it feels as it handles better.

... and ideally the car is well balanced in weight distribution (i.e. 50% equally over the front and rear tires). For many small cars, like the Mazda3 and the Honda Civic, lightening the car on the front end is one area for improvement. That's one reason I prefer the smaller 4 cylinder over a heavier 6 cylinder. Even a 4 cylinder with a turbo is preferable to a V6 in my books. But the ideal is a lighter engine. I'm looking forward to the day that light hybrids can do the work of a turbo 4 cylinder. F1 is planning to incorporate hybrids into their racing in the future.

d_hyper · May 2007

A lighter car will always feel like the better handler, even if the numbers say otherwise.

Not Always. Also depends on the weight distribution. C&D boys felt RX-8 is lighter then Audi TT, but it wasn't.

rorr · May 2007

"while i do think the si is a great fwd handling car, the hardcore suspension and massive tires of the ms3 do edge it out."

Lots of stuff in here lately regarding the elusive term "handling".

"Handling" is more that a set of numbers. Hardcore suspension and fat tires may certainly give a better skidpad number, or lane change number, but NUMBERS are only part of the story.

One must also consider compliance (how little road imperfections may upset a chassis that otherwise gives great "numbers"), steering response (how precisely can the car be placed in corners and how easy is it to maintain a set path), slip angles (taken with steering feel, how well does the car communicate to the driver how close to the ragged edge he's getting), etc. etc. etc...

Some cars may give GREAT 'numbers' but are regard by some as being 'evil' handlers as they give their driver a massive case of white knuckles and sweaty palms trying to GET those 'numbers'.

In a sense, what constitutes good 'handling' is somewhat subjective. However, I would take the opinion of a professional driver/tester about which cars are the better 'handlers' over the opinion of a starry-eyed owner. Even then, I'd just as soon do my OWN test-drive and make my own judgment.

aviboy97 · May 2007

C&D boys felt RX-8 is lighter then Audi TT, but it wasn't

I read that comparo, and the RX-8 won. The Rx-8 was simply the most fun to drive, according to them. Also, the RX-8 has near 50/50 weight distribution, and the TT is not. The TT basically a GTI under the sheet metal, the 2.0T version, of course.

eldaino · May 2007

Some cars may give GREAT 'numbers' but are regard by some as being 'evil' handlers as they give their driver a massive case of white knuckles and sweaty palms trying to GET those 'numbers'.

oh i completely agree! i was trying to discern carfan's relatively common comment of how his si seems to handle better than the mazdaspeed, and i figured it had to to with the lightness of the car...in turn you said;

In a sense, what constitutes good 'handling' is somewhat subjective. However, I would take the opinion of a professional driver/tester about which cars are the better 'handlers' over the opinion of a starry-eyed owner. Even then, I'd just as soon do my OWN test-drive and make my own judgment.

...which i totally agree with and think that that is the case her.

I don't doubt the si's handling, and would personally take a 4 door over the ms3.

PF_Flyer · May 2007

The Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

600kgolfgt · May 2007

http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/vortex_news/article_2007.shtml

eldaino · May 2007

i know this thing is amazing. ofcourse if it were to make it to production, everyone here would flame it for being to expensive and that it competes in a different class, blah blah blah.

Mazdaspeed who?

rorr · May 2007

"...everyone here would flame it for being to expensive and that it competes in a different class, blah blah blah."

:shades:

Interesting that in order to better the Speed3, VW had to resort to a twin-turbo W-12 powering the rear wheels.

I wonder how hard it would be to take the drivetrain from a wrecked Speed3 and drop it into the rear hatch area of Speed3 making a twin-engined, AWD Speed3?

Nah. Tooo expensive and would put it into a different class...

Mazdaspeed3 vs. VW V GTI vs. Civic Si

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles