Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Aslo, my mechanic told me Toyota bought a big stake in Fuji Heavy Industries and expects Subaru technology to start showing up in future Toyotas. So who knows what will be available in a couple of years.
When it comes right down to it, if I were leaning toward the Mazda3 wagon I think I would also strongly have to consider either of the small Subarus if I just had to have a wagon. The gas mileage for the AWD Subaru is nearly the same as for the Mazda3 wagon (22-29 vs 23-31) and you get AWD.
But I'm off topic. Leaning even closer to the Honda today. Funny thing though, while the Mazda and Toyota salesmen have called me back, the Honda guy hasn't. Not that I want any more conversations with car salesmen than necessary.
The Civic and M3 are too low powered to suffer from torque steer but the worse MPGs and extra cost are worth not having the feel of being dragged around everywhere by your front wheels alone
I would disagree with that. The power in both Civic and Mazda3 are plenty. These are "economy cars". The Impreza is not. It's a very thirsty vehicle. I just drove to DC from Connecticut (took 6 hrs) and I was getting 25mpg. Not to mention how loud the engine is, and the upholdstry is falling apart.
If we were to compare how these vehicle do in snow, that is a different story. Hands down the Impreza wins. As I said, the AWD system is phenomenal.
The Subaru has been reliable, however, I have replaced both head gaskets, fuel lines, exhaust shield, clock and stereo shorted out (not a blown fuse) and now it slams into 2nd gear (automatic tranny). I only have 60K on it. My fiance is thinking about replacing it with the new '08 Impreza, she just love the AWD, and I can't blame her for that. We live in Connecticut and get some nasty winters.
I'd hate to see what you called UNreliable..... :sick:
sorry. back to civic vs 3.
From what I have read the Civic is a fine car with very good gas mileage. I would have seriously considered it had it offered this important safety feature.
The other reason I went with the 3 is that I wanted the versatility of the hatch. I have always owned sedans before and there has always been some box I couldn't fit in the trunk opening or in the back seat. I have already carried some large boxes in the hatch with no problem.
I don't drive a lot so the gas mileage issue was less important for me. If we really wanted to save gas we would do even better if we could get all those pickup trucks and SUVs from 10-12mpg to 18-20mpg. The way we measure gas mileage in this country understates that level of improvement. An increase from 10mpg to 20mpg is 100%, going from 20mpg to 30mpg is only a 50% improvement, and 30mpg to 40mpg is only 33%. Ok off the soapbox now.
The Civic's Engine Technology and MPG with the 5 speed AT were too much. I felt the interior material, especially the carpet and seat covering were superior on the Civic EX.
I don't like the dash on the Civic, but it was a compromise. The handling was fine for me. Nothing like the Razor Edge of my 6s, but ok now that I'm nearing 50.
The Civic will most likely be worth around 60% of its MSRP after 5 years. You won't come anywhere near that with the 3.
The above are the subjective opinions of an aging enthusiast. Others results may vary.
60% is a bit high. I just took on trade today, a 2006 Civic EX Coupe 5-speed w/27K for $12,500. Original MSRP was $19,305. It lost 35% of its value in 1 year. Granted, this is trade value, and the miles are 20K high.
Mazda3 and Civic seem to be holding similar resale value.
To anyone shopping these two cars, I will recommend thinking about how important gas mileage is to you. So far I have gotten approximately 25.5 MPG in my 3. The car hasn't quite been broken in yet, so I assume I will do a little better than that. Yet, The Civic would probably trounce the 3 in fuel economy. I knew this going in, so I'm not too dissapointed. I've been reading that Civic owners really aren't totally getting the EPA suggested MPG either.
I hope this helps potential buyers. Basically the 3 is sporty and has more character. If you want to play it safe though, the Civic would probably be a better choice for overall practicality. For me, the 3 had what I needed.
I have read that a lot of Civic owners are averaging 30mpg. Better then the 3? Yes. But, not as good at the original EPA estimates.
Check out fueleconomy.gov for the full list of models' mileage.
22/29. the manual gets 22/30 (which is funny, cause thats what my rabbit used to epa for.)
quite a differance between the civc and mazda.
in the mazdas favor though, the 2.0 gets 23/31, the manual achieving 24/32.
the number for the 2.0 i's mpg is interesting, as it dropped 4 mpg in the city. (from 28-24.) suddenly the civics 5mpg drop isn't such a huge crime. the same can be said of the 2.3, which in manual guise, dropped 4mpg as well. (from 26 to 22.)
A 4mpg drop in the city is not as significant at a 5mpg drop on the highway. Vehicles are supposed to be more economical on the highway, and not as much in the city, unless you are a hybrid.
Just my $.02
ah...honda guys sometimes.
great mileage though!
true, but a 5mpg advantage for the civic, even with the new epa numbers, can hardly classify it as un-econimical.
imho, its more impressive for it to take such a hit, and still be way on top.
My 2005 Mazda6 4cyl 5-speed gets 30mpg highway at 70mph, and is rated at 31mpg (old rating)
its more impressive for it to take such a hit, and still be way on top.
Well, every mfg took a hit, not just Honda
i must say i would never do such a thing, seeing as how my rabbit is only slightly quicker than my old 06 ex,
...funny thing is, i've seen numbers for manual tranmission ex's and 4 door si's and they are not to far apart...
(7.7, 7.1) at least thats not HUGE to me...i dunno, have you ever timed yourself iomatic?
(7.7, 7.1) at least thats not HUGE to me
The power advantage is seen over 60mph in the Si vs the EX, LX etc....remember, torque gets you going, and neither really have any. Once you are at a higher speed, the HP takes over. That is where you will see the difference.
having said that, i figured the difference would be bigger, it just does not look like it, although i'm sure if feels like it. I averaged about high 8's low 9's with my old civic, but it was an auto.
:P
really hope that was sarcastic!
i remember when i had my ex four door, one of the things my friends told me was that it looked sportier than any civic they had ever seen...sportier than the previous si hatchback (which was easy to understand.), but it didn't ooze 'put a muffler on me!' and that most kids would be disuaded from doing so.
having said that, even though its still to a lesser extent, you do still see people trying to 'rice' it up; leaving my work the other day, a girl drving an otherwise nice 2 door ralley red si stopped and had 18 or 19 inch chrome rims. :sick:
she saw me looking at her car and i made it strongly apparent that i did not agree! :P
she looked a bit flustered, as would anyone who thinks thats a smart thing to do.
2007 Honda Civic LX versus 2007 Mazda3 i-touring with SAB/SAC package.
got the mazda dealer down to 17.7k out the door. Honda dealer wouldn't move off of 19k out the door.
(I was also looking at a 2007 Toyota corolla sport -- very nice car, but i like the civic and mazda 3 better)
I think I will be happy with both.
Seems like there are only a few differences.
1) MPG - seems like the real world difference is slight, also getting the mazda for cheaper. so this is not really a factor anymore.
2) Acceleration - the civic seemed to have slightly better acceleration. Is this true? how do the 0-60 times compare. I know the mazda packs a few more hp.
3) Handling - mazda seemed better, but i didn't go crazy here.
4) The mazda3 seems more "different" I always feel like i see civics around.
5) I really liked the interior of the mazda, very stylish.
thoughts? I am buying one of these tomorrow.
i think its easier to negotiate on the 2.0 i, since its the 2.3 that is the 'hot' model. Still 19k seems kinda steep for an lx...are there any options on it?
The 3i i think can usually be had with alloy wheels, is this the case with the one you are looking at? The lx has rear drums and no alloys, but the tires are the same size as the ex.
1) MPG - seems like the real world difference is slight, also getting the mazda for cheaper. so this is not really a factor anymore.
go to fueleconomy.gov and look up the numbers for both of these cars....while there is a significant difference between the 2.3 and the civics engine, the 2.0 closes this gap a bit more, the civic only gets 2mpg better in the city...but the highway difference is pretty big more mpg. Pretty good considering the 2.0 doesn't really offer you that much more with regards to power and torque.
2) Acceleration - the civic seemed to have slightly better acceleration. Is this true? how do the 0-60 times compare. I know the mazda packs a few more hp.
again, its not that much more. Heck, edmunds compared the 2.3 to the the civc, and still thought the civic held its own, despite the fairly large hp/displacement disadvantage. The 2.0 is to a lesser degree, it only has a few more hp and a few more lbs of torque, nothing ultra noticable. (in otherwords, it wouldn't be like comparing the 2.3 to the 1.8 in the civic.) SO, similar power, better mpg with the civic. Acceleration times should be similar, both are sub-9 second cars, the manual transmission civic (non si) was clocked by car and driver at 7.7 seconds 0-60, which is just a tad slower than the civic si sedan.
4) The mazda3 seems more "different" I always feel like i see civics around
this can be argued either way...different doesn't neccesarily mean which one do you see more often, but which one breaks the compact car mold more? The civic, even if you do see it more often, is very uniquely shaped, inside and out, and looks like nothing else on the road. The 3, while still being a VERY good looking vehicle, especially in hatch form, has a more traditional approach to styling, and in my eyes, is more 'normal'.
I hope this helps and good luck with your purchase, you will be happy either way, they are both GREAT cars!
Actually, it is quite the opposite. The Mazda3 i is tougher to get right now. Inventory on s models is higher then the i models in most cases.
go to fueleconomy.gov and look up the numbers for both of these cars....while there is a significant difference between the 2.3 and the civics engine, the 2.0 closes this gap a bit more, the civic only gets 2mpg better in the city...but the highway difference is pretty big more mpg
He is not shopping the 2.3L, only the 2.0L. The 2.0L Mazda is not too far off from the 1.8L Honda.
Haha, just goes to show how much opinions can differ. I'm a college kid myself, and think the Mazda 3 is a very nice, great handling, very conventional looking sedan. The Civic has a style to it that Mazda doesn't. The Civic isn't derivative looking, something I can't say for the 3.
I've driven both, and know completely that the Mazda 3 is a great handler, but the Civic is too (capable of probably 90% of what the Mazda is). Add in the fact that the Civic's tires don't scream when driving down the interstate, and the interior isn't incredibly dark (the Mazda 3s I drove was blue outside, BLACK inside. Very dour looking, and lacking in contrast.
For a college kid like me, the Honda wins. Just goes to show that there are different attitudes in each category of people sa well. I commute to school everyday on a rough interstate, and the drone of the road noise would just be a bit much, when coupled with the bumpier suspension.
By the way, i'm not a Civic owner (at 6'4", both are a bit small for me to live with every day).
Have a great weekend...
TheGrad
I was just saying in general the Mazda is more fun than the Civic, which is probably a little more practical. And I think when the comparison was written (I saw a lot of people complaining) it was written from the POV of people who would be looking for a more fun, sporty-er car.
I mean I see kids around campus with these giant trucks and I'm wondering how anyone would squeeze those into the tiny parking spaces, but hey, i guess that's their thing.
I KNOW! I live in Alabama, and commute to UAB (Alabama at B'ham) which is downtown, so parking is quite limited, yet the number of large SUVs and pickups never ceases to amaze me.
As I re-read something in your post, I can't help but make this point regarding the Mazda. It is MORE practical in the "room" department. More headroom and legroom due to the overall shape of the vehicle. The sleek Civic means I can't ride in the back seat without slouching, and when I slouch, my limited legroom shrinks even more (although I've only ridden in the EX model with a sunroof, it probably wouldn't be any problem in an LX wihtout a sunroof).
So, props to Mazda in that regard.
I hope it wasn't taken that I was slamming the Mazda around for its "conventional" looks. I drive one of the most conventional things on the road, but if I were shopping for a smaller car, I'd likely pick the Civic because of characteristics mentioned previously...the same characteristics my car shares (sporty, but not too firm for me, and quieter than its sportier competitor as well, with the nicer interior in my opnion - all of this is subjective though, so take what I say with a grain of salt! )
a split dash desing and star wars styling just makes me scratch my head when people liken it to their dads taurus? :confuse:
to zoomzoomnole; the reason a lot of folks complained about the mazda 3/civic comparo was because of the articles misleading nature; it was supposed to be about economy cars, and the civic should have won in that regard; it was well built, quality materials, nice ride and got 7 mpg better than the 3. Yet all of this was mentioned as an after thought.
Then to top it off, they tested a 3 that was A LOT more expensive than the civic, decked out with leather and the like, and then commented on how the civics interior was not as nice, and then said it to just mentally delete the added cost of all the options and you have a comparably priced car.
Do i like a sporty drive? yes i sure do. And the 3 is great at that! But why not compare it to the si if thats where your true priorities lie? The reason is simple; the si is a faster, better handling car than the 3 and just as funcional. Ofcourse, after the si sedan debuted, the mazdaspeed 3 came out, AND THEN it was ok to throw the si into the mix.
and another .
But, maybe you are focusing on the interior, which def is less conventional.
As for the original article: Edmunds used the title of economy because that's the traditional name for cars branded with the Civic/corolla nameplate. But, neither the Civic or 3 are really 'economy' cars anymore. Their quality and size are comparable or exceed those of midsize cars from less than a decade ago. Their price also is closer to 20,000 than 15,000.
If you want true economy these days, there's a whole new B segment of cars.
Also, I believe when the comparo was done, there was no Civic Si sedan (only coupe). So, it wouldn't have been a apples to apples comparison. As you mentioned, soon after the Si sedan was introduced to the states, Mazda introduced the Speed3. So, there wasn't really a time when the top 4 door vehicles from either company in this segment was the Si sedan and 3s.
The Sandman
Sometimes people associate bland with seeing a car often, and you probably do see slightly more civics than 3's...but that still doesn't change the civics unorthodox design.
true, there was only an si coupe, but there was probably enough time to do a comparo before the speed 3 came along. I just knew it wasn't going to happen. Just like testing the civic type r sedan wont happen, a car that while maybe not as quick 0-60 would pretty much obliterate the mazda with regards to driving purity and handling. (a civic that laps faster than an s2k? yeah, amazing.)
if there is a whole slew of b-segment cars that are the new 'economy' cars, then the title was still a bit on the tricky side. And REGARDLESS of the title, the civic DOES pack more 'economy' and frugality than the 3.
I test drove the Mazda 3 and its nice. It has a European feel to it, almost like a BMA 3 Series but $10-$15 cheaper.
I do like the Mazda look better than the Civic, but as a long time Honda fan, I still have the love for a Honda. What do you think? Please to convince me which one to get!
Thanks in advance
Both great cars, as evidenced by our garage. Will be quite interested in the next generation Corolla though. I think Toyota needs to hit a grand slam with it, as the competition has gotten that good. Hopefully they'll get the driving position just right. The Corolla we rented last year had an awkward feel when driving...just couldn't get a comfortable fit with the steering wheel...something just wasn't right. I've read others have felt the same thing.
Great time to buy this class of car though. Endless choices at different price levels.
The Sandman
No doubt that they are long lasting cars, but Corolla never had the design to handle the roads well. It doesn't hang curves well and it just looks really boring.
If I consider a Honda, it has to be the Si Sedan with 2.0L and 197HP. But as for torque, Mazda has honda beat. Its even better if you move up to Mazdaspeed3, 1-60 in 5.8 sec.
The problem with Mazdaspeed3 is that, the hatchback is just not my style....I am 6'1 and 210 (I am not fat, just a big guy physically fit) and I would look really funny in a wagon/hatchback...
Despite the torque advantage the mazda 3 has, the civic si IS faster still. and it handles better. (i'm not talking about the mazdaspeed though.)
The si sedan sounds like your sporty ride; plus you still get to keep your honda loyalty going!
I look forward to test drive the Si out. I am a manual shift guy (I haven't own an automatic in over 15 years)so it will be great.
Now back to Mazda3. I have read that maintenance on that car can be expensive. I read somewhere too that its hard to find the 17" tires that fit. Normal 17" tires don't fit well with the Mazda3, is that true?
Sandman, any problems with your Mazda at all?
My mother in laws maintanence on her mazda 6 has been expensive, but we have some pretty crappy mazda dealers around here. But then again, i know some people who do it themselves and have no issues. Honda service is usually easy and not expensive when compared to other automakers. at least you run less of a chance of going in for unscheduled maintanence!
Unfortunately, most of those models are made by BMW, so the tires are expensive.