Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla vs Mazda3

thegraduate · October 2005

This isn't so much to knock you, as much as Edmunds:

Most economy sedans feel like a compromise. The 2005 Mazda 3 isn't one of them

The compromise of the 3 is the fuel economy loss to the Civic. People that want an economy car generally want the most economy for the money, being a Civic or Corolla each delivering 40 mpg or higher. You could buy a Honda Accord manual tranny and get better mileage (26/34) than the 3 (25/32), while having a much nicer interior, still sporty driving characteristics (still inferior to the 6 in the sporty part but more than the average driver will ever use), and better resale value.

It is about compromise, it just depends on whether you want to compromise cost of fuel (5-8 mpg) for 20 horsepower. I must say, that on the daily grind to work, I rarely wind the tach above 3,000 rpm. It isn't necessary, and rarely possible in the traffic, all the more fun to get my city mileage much higher than a 3!

stickguy · October 2005

If you are more concerned about mileage, get an i model. It get's quite a bit better mileage than the S, in the ball park of the CIvic.

mdaffron · October 2005

I guess some of us think it's worth that loss of 8 mpg to have a vehicle that's a bit more unique than the run-of-the-mill, plain-vanilla herd car that Honda stamps out to the masses.

Meade

midnightcowboy · October 2005

Concerning Edmunds review of "economy" cars It was kind-of an oxymoron, because economy, as in miles-per-gallon, didn't seem to be the main focus because the winner Mazda 3 averaged only 20.8 miles per gallon.

Most people when you talk about and "economy" car think in terms of best miles per gallon or TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).

YMMV,

MidCow

P.S. -My performance 6-speed Honda Accord Coupe V6 EX w/NAV gets much better mileage than a Mazda 3 and also signifciantly out-accelerates it!

mdaffron · October 2005

There's more to the "economy" of an economy car than gas mileage. In fact, economy cars are labeled as such more because of their sticker price than their gas mileage.

From wikipedia.org (which is the first "hit" you get when you type "economy car definition" into Google:

An economy car is an automobile that is designed for low-cost operation. Typical economy cars are small, light weight, and inexpensive to buy. The Oil crisis of the 1970s caused a great deal of emphasis on economy, leading to a shift to smaller front wheel drive cars like the Volkswagen Beetle and Honda Civic.

Meade

ezpilze · October 2005

Like I said near the end, you'd maybe buy the mazda 3 for looks, so I'm assuming that each person here would atleast go and look at the car before making their own judgement about how the car looks.

If you were to compare my comparison to a consumer report, then you might as well just read that instead, this report is based on MY opinion. I tried all three cars out in both manual and automatic for atleast 2 hrs each. You seem to have something against me ranking the mazda 3 at the low end of the 3 econo cars. If you own a mazda 3 then I suggest you try rate the cars without a bias. From past experiences with mazdas (my friend's rx-7 and protege and family member's MPV minivan) the engines were a pain to fix, and often showed much more problems on long trips(2 yr old mazda minivan with <50k miles broke down twice while we were passing by tahoe) than Hondas or toyotas, so although qutie reliable, mazda reliability still(as far as self repairs and long term ownership) is still in my opinion, not up to par.

mdaffron · October 2005

Right ... in your opinion. Here's my history with Mazda cars to date:

1992 Protege LX: 28,000 miles, no problems (totaled in hydroplaning accident)
1992 Protege LX no. 2: 83,000 miles, no problems (and I racked up all those miles in only 28 months -- 3K miles a month -- delivering pizzas during college)
2000 Protege ES: 91,100 miles, front strut bushings replaced at 85,000 miles ($250 job)
2002 Protege5: Wife's current car, 55,000 miles, no problems
2005 Mazda3: My current car: 10,500 miles, no problems

I don't have any experience working on Mazda engines because in five cars, 14 years and a little over a quarter of a million miles, I haven't had any engine problems!

Meade

legalpenguin · October 2005

I'm female so I think differently, more logically too because I work in law. From what I've seen, guys tend to focus solely on performance and looks. Nothing else that anyone says matters.

I bought a Honda Civic because most experts say it's at the head of its class overall...period. Apparently a lot of people like the way it looks because it's flying off the lots. It's still a leader in its class.

It doesn't surprise me that a Mazda fanatic is going to continuously say derogatory and purely subjective things about the way a Honda looks. The Mazda is slightly different but I don't think it's very unique --I think it's take a lot of its look from the Toyotas, especially the Corolla. They both have a lot of soft rounded corners all over it which makes it look very feminine. I prefer classic lines and more definition.

I think mpg nowadays is a big selling point in cars because of the gas prices. Makes sense. The news says hybrids are hot! If you go for looks and performance, that's your perogative. However, I believe there are more important aspects to consider when you are spending your hard earned dollars on a car these days.

Mazda is a good car, don't get me wrong. I prefer Hondas and Toyotas. For years, they have been at the top of their field bringing customers cars that are known worldwide for their reliability, quality, resale value and gas mileage.

legalpenguin · October 2005

I believe the previous poster who mentioned his opinion after looking at all three brands said that Mazda's reliability isn't as good as the others is talking about all Mazdas out there as a whole, not just yours, Meade. I'm glad you had no problems, but not everyone is that lucky.

pat · October 2005

Please be careful - all opinions are subjective, yours included. We are all entitled to our opinions, of course, and we use own priorities to define the criteria we use to arrive at them. What you define as your criteria is entirely your prerogative. By the same token, others are entitled to define theirs according to their own line of thinking.

You aren't right and they aren't wrong, just as they aren't right and you aren't wrong. You all are entitled to your views and to express them here without getting beaten up for them.

That said, we are here to discuss and contrast our different viewpoints, so carry on. Let's just not get into telling others in some way that their opinion is somehow incorrect. It is not incorrect for them, even if we see things differently.

midnightcowboy · October 2005

Okay you said :

"An economy car is an automobile that is designed for low-cost operation. "

Low cost operation, the key word being operation, in an economic sense is gas cost and maintenance cost. There are also factors such as reliability, tire cost,repair costs, insurance cost ,but these are not the major differentiating metrics.

Operation has nothing to do with sticker price according to your defintion.

My choice for economy car is the Mercedes 320CDi ; low operation cost.

The point is that mpg should be a significant factor in an economic car evaluation and it was not in the Edmunds economic car comparison.

If it were considered then Honda Civic would have been the winner. But hey, Honda Civic continues to win year after year and after all the Mazda 3 is a fun ,sporty car just not economical.

I tend to side with LegalPenguin, I think the Honda Civic is the best choice out of the 3: Best relability, Best mileage, good layout of controls, and the smoothest manual shift.

Cheers,

MidCow

03accordman · October 2005

These days it is a fashion to say that this or that car is 'plain vanilla', 'for the masses', 'run of the mill' etc etc. The latest Civic is by no stretch of imagination a plain vanilla car, any more than a Mazda 3. The 3 is a great little car, but by no means unique.

Coming back to what Honda stamps out to the 'masses', well they make what people want to buy, not something that will sit in dealer lots and have to be discounted 4-5 thousand dollars. And what exactly do you think american masses are, idiots??? People talk and talk about different cars, but when time comes to vote with their wallets, everyone takes a more realistic look at things. This is the sole reason that the 05 Civic was handily outselling the 3 even with the 3 being considered a sportier car. This will continue, I have no doubt on that, and not because Mazda can't make more 3s.

Anyway, Honda does make some pretty exciting cars (IMHO) some of which are listed below:

S2000
New Civic Si
2006 Accord V6 Stick
Acuras - TSX, TL, RSX

Even the Odyssey is considered a sporty minivan. Apart from this, Honda itself is an exciting car/motor company, as demonstrated by their race presence. In F-1, they are considered at the top of the heap in power, pulling in around 900 HP from a 3.0L engine.

In the market place, Hondas are usually a the top of the heap in their respective classes, both in HP as well as Gas Mileage. That is the reason most of the cars/SUVs they make sell well, in fact are best sellers.

giantkiller · October 2005

Where is that in Mars? Give me me data please.

explorerx4 · October 2005

i'm guessing from comments that the new civic is way better than the old one. drove the last generation and hated the lack of feel. i bought an '04 focus. other than the cheap interior, it's a pretty good, fun car to drive. some cars are great on paper, but not so great to live with. i have never been able to get comfortable in toyota seats. the drivers seat in a sport package focus is way better than the standard setup.

allfiredup · October 2005

Here are my subjective views of the pros and cons of both cars-

Mazda3-
PRO- exterior styling, interior styling, acceleration, handling, black interior available
CON- lower gas mileage than some competitors (s model), driver seat a little cramped for bigger folks, harsh ride on imperfect surfaces

Honda Civic-
PRO- looks great from side and back, innovative and spacious interior, fuel economy, comfortable big-car ride
CON- front is unattractive, interior color choices are bland, no higher performance sedan option

Both really are fantastic cars. I think 3 sales will continue to increase with rising gas prices and Honda will have no problems selling their 300,000 planned units this year.

For me, it comes down to whether I want sportiness/handling (Mazda) or comfort and economy (Honda). I'm leaning toward the sportiness and handling.

If only Honda would offer an Si Sedan....

allfiredup · October 2005

The 3 i does get significantly better fuel economy than the s.

Here are the figures-

i - MT- 28/35
AT- 26/34

s- MT- 25/32
AT- 24/29

Mazda doesn't have the '06 specs listed on their site yet, so the AT figures are for '05 models. The i had some engine modifications that might affect mileage and the s has the 5-speed automatic this year which may increase economy.

ezpilze · October 2005

I just realized this, why isn't the nissan sentra in this compar anyways? The SE-R is within or around the price range of the mazda 3 as well, while the 1.8S is definintely within the corollas price range... Same with the Mitsubishi ralliart... wait, why were these 3 cars the ONLY econo-cars to be compared anyways?

Oh well whatever, and in regards to mdaffron, I'm glad your experiences with mazdas were enjoyable, but from the amount of mileage I see on your mazdas and based on their years, I'm guessing you did alot of city and freeway driving only(sorry if I'm wrong). In my case the cars were driven under more severe conditions both from the driver and the environment(Hills, snow, desert heat, etc). I'm not saying that Hondas and Toyotas were impervious to all the abuse, but on average they tended to last longer before needing any maintainence.

chrisbolt · October 2005

Can't remember the source, but the '06 s 5AT gets 25/31

autonomous · October 2005

The latest Civic is by no stretch of imagination a plain vanilla car, any more than a Mazda 3.
I could not agree with you more. And as allfiredup noted they both have their audiences. What I find useful in these forums is the expression of what's important to various audiences. For example, I love cars that provide taut, precise moves and would be prepared to give up the comfort found in other cars that give me the feeling of "floating" over the road. There is nothing wrong with being in one or the other group. Also, as 03accordman rightly writes, Honda can make exciting cars. Did you know that Soichiro Honda, the firebrand founder, who was called the "Latin" of Japanese automaking, was a racer of his own creations and once sustained a serious injury taking two years of recovery (all this from a wonderful book by Wanda James called Driving from Japan).

The 3 is a great little car
Among the names Mazda used for its compact cars besides 3 was 323 and GLC; when asked what GLC meant, the response was "great little car".

mdaffron · October 2005

I'm guessing you did alot of city and freeway driving only(sorry if I'm wrong). In my case the cars were driven under more severe conditions both from the driver and the environment(Hills, snow, desert heat, etc).

I would think 4,000 miles a month (for 28 months) of stop-and-go Pizza Hut delivery driving in all manners of weather, from 100-degree, high-humidity mid-Atlantic summers to winter ice storms, sleet and snow, would just about beat any snow or desert weather you could throw at a car. And my second '92 weathered (sorry) that kind of environment from the day it left the lot until the day I traded it in 83,000 miles later, and never had one problem.

No, I'm not saying the 3 is for everyone. Nor am I saying I expect all Mazdas to perform the way mine did. (But ya gotta admit, after five nearly flawless cars, the odds are in favor of my experiences.) I'm glad Pat came in and set a few things straight here. It seems that some people here don't understand that our opposing opinions are healthy and they balance out the comparison. None of the three cars in question is a "bad" car, any more than any of us being more "right" than the other. My reasons for liking my car are just as important to me as your reasons for liking your car are to you, and the Town Hall (and more specifically, this comparo discussion) exists so we can yack it out -- in a civil manner, hopefully while still having a little fun jabbing each other -- so prospective buyers can tap into what's important to them and make a decision based upon our experiences. In other words, this discussion exists so I can say the Civic is "plain vanilla" as much as that person can say the Civic is the best thing since vanilla pudding in a take-along six-pack. :P

You state your opinion, I'll state mine. Each of us is correct for our own reasons. But don't think you're going to change my opinion -- or, more importantly, my demeanor -- by calling me overly personal, insensitive or overreactive. This is a forum about cars -- and cars are a highly opinionated, overly subjective, and explosively passionate subject for many. Especially those of us who prefer not to drive what everybody else is driving, and who base our choice of car on more than just what some publication told us we should be driving.

BTW, regarding that "economy" definition, I'd like you to consider my "cost of ownership" against the Civic even with its 8-mpg highway lead. Since Mazda has paid for all my oil changes for the first three years (value $240 @ $20 per change), plus all my tires for life (assuming two more sets @ $450 -- that's lowballing it, btw -- which comes to $900), plus it has a timing chain which will not cost me $400 to replace in the fourth or fifth year of ownership, buying my Mazda3 has already saved me $1,540. The Civic gets 8 more mpg, which at $3.00 a gallon and the 11 gallons it takes to fill up my Mazda3, equates to about $7.50 more per fillup of my 3 than if I had a Civic (assuming all we do is highway driviing -- but again, I'll lowball myself for the sake of this argument). I fill my tank about every 10 days. I keep my cars for about five years. That's 183 fillups. 183 x $7.50 = $1,372.50 the Civic would be saving me over five years, compared to the $1,540 I'm saving in Mazda-supplied oil changes and tires, and the fact that I won't need a timing belt and the Civic will. So I actually save more than $167 by driving the 3 instead of the Civic.

One more thing -- somebody listed the Mazda3's seats as a "con" because they could be uncomfortable for larger drivers. Well boys and girls, I'm 6-1 and weigh 280 pounds, and I shop in the "big and tall" stores. Unlike some of you, I DID go and look at the competition, and I still do regularly -- I came damn near buying a Sentra SE-R back in 2000 over the Protege -- even had signed some papers and agreed on a payment at Dominion Nissan here in Richmond -- thank God I didn't now! -- anyway, one, er, "big" reason for buying the Mazda3 over the Civic and Corolla was that my hip dug into the seat-belt connector in the Civic, and my head was hitting the ceiling in it and the Corolla!

Meade

P.S. If you really want to know why I'm so passionate about Mazda, it's because Mazda is passionate about building cars that aren't plain-vanilla and catered to the masses. Read this before you respond: http://www.mazda.com/product/mazda3/4a/2w/story1_1.html

w9cw · October 2005

autonomous wrote: "The 3 is a great little car Among the names Mazda used for its compact cars besides 3 was 323 and GLC; when asked what GLC meant, the response was "great little car".

I bought a new 1978 Mazda GLC in September 1977. I believe it was the first model year for the GLC. It was a very nice car, and given the size of the Civic at that time, Mazda actually marketed the GLC against the Accord. I drove it for 3 years, put over 75,000 miles on it without the hint of trouble. The only real problem I had was the dealer. They were basically clueless, and I ended up performing most of the maintenance on the car - which was nil except for normal routine preventive maintenance.

mdaffron · October 2005

All this discussion about the Civic's fantastic gas mileage got my curiosity up, and I went over and looked at the "Civic: Real-World MPG Numbers" discussion. What I read there -- especially the last half-dozen or so posts which are from owners of 2004 and 2005 Civics -- made me start wondering if it was really fair to grant the Civic an 8-mpg lead over the Mazda3 on the highway. It appears, in the real world, that maybe 4 or 5 mpg would be a fairer comparison based on the way people drive their cars.

Meade

03accordman · October 2005

Meade, did you compare these real world figures to the 3s real world figures or EPA numbers?

I like the 3, my only concern is the gas mileage, which, even on the i, is no better than my 4 cyl Accord. For some reason, Mazda of late has been lagging on gas mileage, I wonder why. Earlier they used to be righ up there with Honda/Toyota.

mdaffron · October 2005

Meade, did you compare these real world figures to the 3s real world figures or EPA numbers?

Yep. Sho' did. It appears that the actual owners of Mazda3's are getting 32-33 on the highway with a few exceptions ... even admitting they drive the cars pretty hard. Actual owners of 2004 and 2005 Civics are saying they get "34-35 mpg" or "high 30s" for the most part.

For some reason, Mazda of late has been lagging on gas mileage, I wonder why.

Could it be that Mazda has gone with a larger engine (2.3-liter in the Mazda3s, 2.0-liter in the Mazda3i) and Honda has stayed with a 1.8-liter engine? And look at the difference in horsepower. That's gotta come from somewhere!

Meade

giantkiller · October 2005

"I'm waiting to see how long it takes the other guys to bring out their copies of the Mazda5. They'll come -- just watch. "
Oh so ou think Mazda was the innovator for this type of vehicle? There were vehicles of this type in Japan from Japan's Big3 even before mazda release it there in January . Theyre the last to have this type of vehicle.

autonomous · October 2005

Q: For some reason, Mazda of late has been lagging on gas mileage, I wonder why.
A: Could it be that Mazda has gone with a larger engine (2.3-liter in the Mazda3s, 2.0-liter in the Mazda3i) and Honda has stayed with a 1.8-liter engine? And look at the difference in horsepower. That's gotta come from somewhere!

The other conspicuous reason is the increased weight of the Mazda3 when compared to its predecessor, the Protege. Several hundred pounds in fact. I'll have to check the Civic and Corolla but I wouldn't be surprised if they're getting heavier, also. This is an area of which the auto designers need to be more mindful; fuel prices are one reason but general sportiness including agility, braking, etc. suffer with the addition of superfluous weight. Imagine the upcoming MazdaSpeed3 shaving off instead of adding on several hundred pounds - that would be an astonishing achievement. Do I think it'll happen? No. Sorry to say, the direction for most cars seems to be going the other way. Judging from some of the incredible concept cars, I doubt this is due to technical/material problems; it's a question of consumer demand. If we demanded that instead of adding 10% to the hp our next car shed 10% of it's weight, the cars would be there and they wouldn't be wimpier but rather more powerful. After all, that's what happened in the seventies during the oil crisis when the bloated domestic behemoths were being trounced by those raptor-like imports. Here's hoping the raptors rule again.

03accordman · October 2005

Most people I know who drive Civics get close or even more than EPA. If you go back far enough in teh forums, you will see owners getting higher MPGs

As for engine size, yeah sure size does matter, but if you look at competting engines, they are getting better figures. For example, the Accord 2.4 gets more than the 3s 2.3, as well as the 6s four cyl. Going to V6s, both the Accord as well as the Camry's V6s get better than the 6s V6 ( I am not sure about the Altima's V6 even that one may be getting better than the 6). All of the above engines, except the Camry V6 also have higher HP ratings than Mazda

stickguy · October 2005

gearing plays a big part IMO. The Accord is geared much higher than the 6/3 (and probably the Fusion), at least in the 5 speed sticks that I was looking at. The Accord is much more relaxed at highway speeds, and that translates into improved MPG. In theory, the Mazda will accelerate quicker without downshifting.

THis is actually one of my pet peeves. I think recent MT cars have been geared way to short. No way a fairly torquey 2.3-2.4l 4 cyl needs to be turning 3K plus at 70 mph. Syre, maybe a low torque/high RPM screamer 1.8l needs to be turning faster, but not a big displacement 4.

mpg60 · October 2005

Meade,

Thanks for the link to the information on the M3 - Good reading. All I can say is I am glad Mazda made something different for those of us who want different.

mdaffron · October 2005

All I can say is I am glad Mazda made something different for those of us who want different.

I couldn't agree more. You know, back in September 1991 I had compared the Corolla (a '78 was my first car), the Civic, the Sentra and a few others. I had settled on the Civic EX. But then, almost by chance, I thought (like a lot of people), "I wonder what Mazda sells in this price range?" I went over to a Mazda dealer and could not believe what I "discovered." I felt as if I'd just uncovered the "best-kept secret" in the small-car world! I never looked back. They let me drive a Protege LX home that night, and I came back the next day and bought it.

Guys (and gal), I used to drive a Saab. I know Mazda isn't the end-all to the automotive world. But I'll tell you this -- I'll take another reliable, fun-to-drive, comfortable, family-friendly Mazda3 over another Saab at any price any day.

Meade

mdaffron · October 2005

Late '80s, right? Where were the AWD Corollas and Civics? AWD is a proven safety feature, right? I won't even ask about turbos, since I'm a guy and we know guy are only interested in zoom-zoom! :P

Meade

iwantonetoo · October 2005

And just for the record, the 2006 Civic has a timing chain, not a belt, so it will not be a maintainence item as it was on past Civics.

mdaffron · October 2005

The 2006 Civic now offers a timing chain.

But the Mazda3 had it in 2004.

Mazda comes out with the innovation, its competition plays catchup -- that's what I'm talking about.

Meade

pat · October 2005

some off-topic posts.

We are talking about the Civic, the Corolla and the Mazda3 here. Regardless of some folks' efforts to involve a bunch of off-topic material, that's not going to fly.

Please keep future posts to the subject if you'd like to see them remain on the board.

Thanks.

stickguy · October 2005

just curious, but does the Corolla compete here on anything but price, MPG and the toyota nameplate? Most of the discussion seems to centered on the Mazda and Honda. Having driven all 3, the Toyota is (IMHO) totally outclassed, in comfort and driving dynamics/comfort/excitement.

I heard there is a new Camry due for 2007? Anyone know when the next Rola is due out?

giantkiller · October 2005

As a matter of fact its not. Sales figures as of September shows that it is the best selling compact for 2005.

giantkiller · October 2005

The Corolla had the timing chain starting from its 2003-present model. Who's the innovator now?

stickguy · October 2005

the majority of sales are to people that couldn't care less about cars, and probably hate driving to start with.

Most of the regulars at Edmunds are outliers on the car lovers scale I think.

giantkiller · October 2005

majority of car buyers are not bias to a particular car. Look, we have the information and we all have access to all the information were giving them here so dont think theyre not smart buyers.
Just because your driving it and you like it doest mean that I have to like it too. I have my own priorities and needs and basically thats what it says when you look at the sales figures.

ctalk · October 2005

Sales figures do not tell which car is the best, then the Cavalier and Impala will be on the 'best car' list.

The Corolla is an excellent choice, its hard to find anything bad about it (like the Camry)

03accordman · October 2005

my 2000 Altima has a timing chain. Mazda innovation?

03accordman · October 2005

when people vote with their wallets, results are stunningly different!

giantkiller · October 2005

Oh yeah! I almost forgot. The SER engines have timing chain. Remeber Nissan Sentra SER of 1995-1999?

03accordman · October 2005

"Oh yeah! I almost forgot. The SER engines have timing chain. Remeber Nissan Sentra SER of 1995-1999?"

How can that be? Mazda 'innovated' this in 2004 with the 3!

03accordman · October 2005

"Mazda comes out with the innovation, its competition plays catchup -- that's what I'm talking about."

How about the Civic's safety features? All round aribags standard across the trim levels, even the cheapest ones, along with ABS. Isn't that something?

giantkiller · October 2005

Oh well what do yu expect. Go to mazda website and they spent pages describing how mazda3 performs well because of how good the steering feel is because of speed proportional steering and suspension and this and that but guess what? They could have just tell us "speed proportional steering" and independent suspension and be over with it. Does the civic and Corolla have speed proportional steering? Yes.

z71bill · October 2005

Didn't the Ford Model A & T both have timing chains?

They also had the black dash - so Mazda must be stealing from the 1919 ford parts bin!

audia8q · October 2005

The Visigoth's had large wagon type vehicles with wheels.....they disappear for a few thousand years and next thing you know everyone has wheels on their vehicles.....stealing from the visigoth parts bin is considered to be a high crime.

w9cw · October 2005

Of course, a rubber timing belt (the proper name for this is: Gilmer belt) requires routine replacement. The typical replacement interval is 60,000 miles. A timing chain, either a single or duplex chain, seldom requires replacement under normal use. However, when a timing chain requires replacement due to excessive stretching, etc. - depending on the engine design - it can be much more expensive to replace than a Gilmer belt. A timing chain will stretch over time (that's what the chain tensioner is designed to counteract). Unfortunately, in some OHC engine designs, the engine must be pulled to replace the timing chain. Thus, although I much prefer a timing chain to a Gilmer belt design, one can't generalize about its overall long-term cost savings.

allfiredup · October 2005

"just curious, but does the Corolla compete here on anything but price, MPG and the toyota nameplate?"

Because the Toyota is automotive novocaine, much like it's bigger sibling Camry. At least the Mazda and Honda appeal to folks who at least enjoy cars (to what degree is up to you). I have no doubt the Corolla would be a trouble free appliance for a few hundred thousand miles, but you might die of boredom long before then.

Honda Civic vs Toyota Corolla vs Mazda3

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles