Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Civic vs Mazda3

12021232526

Comments

  • rwhrwh Member Posts: 29
    The Forester and Outback Sport were also on my short list. I've always liked Subarus. I don't think I'm going to test drive either because the AWD, while great, isn't something I need right now. In a few years when my kids are grown and I have more time, I could see getting a small Subaru for bike, canoe and kayak trips. They're also great for driving in the mountains and we usually take one ski trip out west each year.

    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The Impreza has quite a bit of body roll (I own a '02 Impreza 2.5 RS). The AWD system is fantastic, however, that does not always translate into better handling on dry pavement. The body roll negates the AWD advantage. My Mazda6 handles better the the Impreza. On a dirt track, since you brought up rally heritage, the AWD makes in handle better due to drifting, where FWD has no control.

    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.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "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."

    I'd hate to see what you called UNreliable..... :sick:
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    i actually have a soft spot for em too (my first car was an 83 gl sedan, non awd.) and i actually like the way the new imprezas look. (despite the chrysler-ish grill which if it hadn't been mentioned i don't think i would have noticed.), but i think subaru made a big mistake making no real powertrain advancments, and they are still using a 4 speed auto. Granted the chassis is lighter, so fuel economy should hopefully go up and the newer suspension tweaks will more than likely get rid of all that body roll. The interiors are nicer too.

    sorry. back to civic vs 3.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Well, we have not had to shell out any money for the repairs, so, it has not been a big deal. Subarus have up to 60K on the warranty, and my fiance has a 100K bumper to bumper warranty. All repairs have been recent. Tt has been great up until the last year or so. We will see how it holds up from now on out.
  • cchicagocchicago Member Posts: 8
    I recently purchased a Mazda3 GT Hatch. I decided not to consider the Civic because it is not currently offered with stability control. I really think this is a great lifesaving feature. Since I keep my cars for a long time, I didn't want to go without it for the next 10 years.

    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. :)
  • glideslopesglideslopes Member Posts: 431
    Having owned a 00 Protege 5-Speed manual, then a 03 6s 5-Speed manual. I was at a cross road. I really did not want to have an 08 6 with the new 265 hp V6 with gas being between 3-4 per gal this time next year. So, I drove a 3 then a Civic EX, then the 3 again, followed by the Civic EX sedan again, and so on.........

    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.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The Mazda3 seems to be holding its value well so far. Like the Civic, the 3 has had few incentives/rebates during its history, and few are sold to fleets. And it remains a desirable car, acknowledged as one of the top cars in its class. So I am not as pessimistic about the 3's resale value.
  • glideslopesglideslopes Member Posts: 431
    Agreed. I should have left that out.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    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.

    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.
  • wam161wam161 Member Posts: 5
    I too just purchased a Mazda3 Hatch. The Civic was the car to beat by my judgment. After extensive research, and several test drives I determined both were excellent cars. I ended up with the Mazda3 for many of the same reasons. It offered a hatch. It had stability control. It felt sportier. It offered a few more luxury features such as leather and automatic climate controls.

    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I've been reading that Civic owners really aren't totally getting the EPA suggested MPG either.

    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.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    That's actually right in the middle of the new EPA estimates, I believe. The Mazda's dropped to 23/31 I think, while the Civic dropped to 25/36 or somethingl like that.

    Check out fueleconomy.gov for the full list of models' mileage.
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    for the civic, you are spot on, but the new numbers for an auto 2.3 (hatch or sedan) are:

    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.)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Correct, that is why I mentioned "original EPA" estimates.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    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

    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.
  • iomaticiomatic Member Posts: 48
    I got 32.67 MPG mixed driving, a couple of childish runs of high throttling against a Rabbit, Altima, and an A4 1.8T, all of course smoked revving my pre-break-in just up to 7200RPMs or so....

    Just my $.02
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    high throttling against a Rabbit

    ah...honda guys sometimes. :blush:

    great mileage though!
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    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.

    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.
  • tomkozskitomkozski Member Posts: 39
    I have a 2006 Mazda 3i with manual transmission, and I regularly get over 35 mpg on the highway, with my average speed around 75 mph. I don't quite understanding how they formulate the new EPA numbers, as I regularly beat the old EPA estimates, particularly on the highway. On one road trip, I averaged 37mpg driving at a constant 75mph.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Have no answer for ya!

    My 2005 Mazda6 4cyl 5-speed gets 30mpg highway at 70mph, and is rated at 31mpg (old rating)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Never said the Civic was "uneconomical".

    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
  • iomaticiomatic Member Posts: 48
    Hehe... it's my first Honda... and while I'm not exactly a spring chicken anymore, I thought it was funny, as this dork was revving it like some kind of Carrera or something, I just had to... I did say it was childish :P
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    who the guy in the rabbit? or one of the other ones?

    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?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    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


    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.
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    oh yes i totally know that...but on both cars have engines that have this style of power delivery, one just has a lot more than the other.

    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.
  • iomaticiomatic Member Posts: 48
    Sure feels like it; and though I know the advantages of the Honda platform, my Si is plenty riced-out.

    :P
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    my Si is plenty riced-out.

    really hope that was sarcastic! :(
  • iomaticiomatic Member Posts: 48
    Meant to say, stock: it's riced-out enough for me.

    :)
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    phew! thats cool...i think that the si is agreat car despite the fact that i think honda knew it was pitching it to a crowd who would want to tune it up.

    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.
  • tehjuicetehjuice Member Posts: 1
    Did anyone do a 2007 comparison. This thread is gigantic now and I have read bits and pieces.

    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.
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    got the mazda dealer down to 17.7k out the door. Honda dealer wouldn't move off of 19k out the door.

    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!
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    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?

    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.
  • bullardohiobullardohio Member Posts: 23
    I've driven the Civic SI sedan, & liked it alot. Am going to test drive a Sentra Spec V this weekend - hopefully. Has anyone driven one of these yet, & how does it stack up to the SI?
  • zoomzoomnolezoomzoomnole Member Posts: 6
    Coming from a 20 year old, I prefer the Mazda to the Civic any day. I've driven/ridden in a Civic and while I really like the split instrument panel..it just feels like a middle aged person's car. I could see my parents driving it. It reminded me of my dad's Ford Taurus. And I'm not saying by any means that the Civic is a crappy car, its a REALLY good car. Its nice...it just feels boring to me. Where as the Mazda has fun styling, amazing handling, and they stick out in a row of cars. Like I said, this is all just an opinion from someone in the market that these cars are targeting to. Maybe that's more what the comparison was considering. Obviously the Civic is a better family car, but for a college kid like me, the Mazda wins.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Obviously the Civic is a better family car, but for a college kid like me, the Mazda wins.

    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
  • zoomzoomnolezoomzoomnole Member Posts: 6
    Ah, well, everyone has their own opinion especially when it comes to cars. I don't have to commute to school, so I don't have to worry about the "screaming" on the highway. And I hate light interior. So the dark isn't an issue for me.

    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.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    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! :))
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    don't worry grad i feel the same way you do; while the 3 is an awesome car, wether you prefer the civic's styling or the mazdas, one thing is certain; the mazda 3 does look more conventinal.

    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.

    :blush: and another :blush: .
  • socal2006socal2006 Member Posts: 44
    I know looks are purely subjective, but I can't understand why you might think the Civic looks less conventional than the 3. Neither are far out there in the sheetmetal department, but the Civic is one of the blandest cars out there. The only distinguishing feature is the cab forward design (which I personally dislike). There's nothing earthshattering about cab foward design. It's done before in other cars (Chrysler cars of the 90s). The rest of the Civic is just a typical back end.

    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.
  • sandman46sandman46 Member Posts: 1,798
    And agree with some of the comments...but not all. Funny though, I drive the Civic and the wife drive the 3s. She likes the "zoom zoom" and I prefer the economy and the split dash. We've been Toyota and Nissan folks before this, but we're both quite happy with our current rides.

    The Sandman :)
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    cab forward designs may have been done before but not in the same vein as the civic. While the back looks more traditional, it has VERY strong hues of audi a4 and bimmer's 3. THe mazda is just a nice looking sedan.

    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.
  • sonnyrockersonnyrocker Member Posts: 127
    I've been driving Honda for many years, but now I am ready to trade in my Accord and I want to go with a sporty compact sedan with some power and on budget....
    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
  • sandman46sandman46 Member Posts: 1,798
    The Civic from a purely mpg standpoint. But it is fun to drive. The slower power from the 1.8 engine is a tradeoff I can live with. For pure driving excitement, the 3s is fantastic in this regard. Lower mpg's, but that's the trade off. For fit & finish, I'll have to give the nod to Honda. Too much black in our 3s and the seats aren't as comfortable.
    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 :)
  • sonnyrockersonnyrocker Member Posts: 127
    I had a Corolla for 10 years, sold it to a friend and his family still has it!! Total 16 years!!!
    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...
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    while the base civic is fun, it seems you want something a bit sporiter; the 2.3 and civic si sedan get roughly the same mpg, maybe slightly in hondas favor.

    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!
  • sonnyrockersonnyrocker Member Posts: 127
    Thanks, eldaino.
    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?
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    i don't think that its so much hard to find as it is they are an...'interesting' size. 205/50 R17 i think. most 17's pack AT LEAST 215's (like the si) and a lot have 225's (like newer vee dubs.)

    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!
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Tires for the Mazda3s are very easy to find, as there are other popular models that use the same size tire.

    Unfortunately, most of those models are made by BMW, so the tires are expensive. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.