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

1356726

Comments

  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    No, they tried to justify the added cost by saying you could take the moonroof/CD changer package and "only" cost $1000 more than the Civic. They also said they liked the interior of the Mazda and it was the interior with the leather and extra luxuries.
    Is leather, ACC, xenons things that are important in an economy car test?
    Why try to justify the extra cost by saying you get leather, xenons, automatic climate control and bad gas mileage in the Mazda when it is supposed to be an economy car comparison?

    Maybe it's true that the 3 touring with the moonroof package would have been a better comparison (for an economy sedan test), but that is not what they chose to compare with the Civic, so that only confirms that it was a poorly thought out test.

    They chose the 2.3 engined model leather, xenons and automatic climate control for an economy sedan test without regard for fuel economy or any other economy.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    Just to reiterate how closely priced comparably equipped Civic and Mazda3 models are, here are the numbers. Edmunds TMV price is showing full sticker on the Civic, but some folks in forums have gotten some discounts on them. The Mazda3 can be had for a lot less than Edmunds TMV. Two weeks ago, I bought my s 5-door Touring with a sticker of $18,175 for $16,500 OTD (not including tax because I bought out of state).

    Here are the prices-

    Civic LX 4-door AT- MSRP- $17,860, Edmunds TMV- $17,860
    Mazda3 i Touring AT- MSRP- $17,845, Edmunds TMV- $17,152

    Civic EX 4-door AT- MSRP- $19,610, Edmunds TMV- $19,610
    Mazda3 s Touring AT- MSRP- $20,015, Edmunds TMV- $19,226
    *Mazda has 6CD changer which is required with sunroof

    The cars sticker very close to each other, but the Mazda can definitely be bought for less similarly equipped. A lot of folks in the "Mazda3: Prices Paid/Buying Experience" forum have gotten their 3 for close to or even under invoice. So, despite Edmunds illogical use of the Grand Touring model, the Mazda3 actually costs less than Civic.

    I suppose the upside for Honda is that they are able to get full sticker for the Civic, at least for now.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    They chose the 2.3 engined model leather, xenons and automatic climate control for an economy sedan test without regard for fuel economy or any other economy.

    FYI- the 3 s Touring is identical mechanically to the Grand Touring model. They have the same 160hp 2.3L.

    Also, something that I don't think has been mentioned, is that the Mazda offers leather interior as an option ($590 on s Touring or standard on Grand Touring) while Civic doesn't offer it at all. I'm not a fan of leather, so I didn't get it, but for some people buying in this price/size range, it's a nice option to have.

    I'll give the Civic some credit for features, too. I'd kill for my Mazda to have the AUX jack for my iPod like the Civic has. It also has some small features that are very cool like they keyless entry integrated into the key, auto-up driver's window. I'd like to see all those on my Mazda.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    Civics are normally well discounted. They aren't discounted much right now only because they were recently redesigned and supply has not caught up to demand yet in this short period of time. It probably won't be much longer before supply increases along with discounting.
  • spinzerospinzero Member Posts: 91
    Civics are normally well discounted. They aren't discounted much right now only because they were recently redesigned and supply has not caught up to demand yet in this short period of time. It probably won't be much longer before supply increases along with discounting.

    Yep, I think the Civic will be much cheaper to buy next year than it is right now.

    But Mazda always has much higher level of discounts and rebates than Honda. (not that it's a good thing) As the 3 is going into its 3rd model year, I would expect more discount, and even some rebates as well.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I wouldn't count on rebates on the Mazda3, except maybe some financing rebates. Mazda seems content to sell the Mazda3 at low volume but high profit. Maybe they have learned from Honda that holding off on rebates helps prop up resale values. A scan of prices on 2004 Mazda3's in my area shows they are holding their value very well, e.g. $16k for a '04 3i.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Backy,

    People can't drive sticks, Horse Pucky. To those very few that are trully handicapped, I applogize. But to the majority that have an attitude there is no excuse.

    I have driven many simulated manual shift cars and the only that comes close to the reality of actually shifting is a BMW.

    Civc Si , only two adults. Well actaully most of the time that is what I fgot the car for. But The Si and EX coupe can accomodate adults in the backseat. However, I wouldn't go on long trips. The backseat is actaully more roomy thatn the GSR and/ot BMW M3 sedan I had.

    I have other cars for hauling cargo and more adults, but most of the time that is not needed. I guess you don't think 2-seat sports cars have any purpose at all, I guess you are right since all car vendors have quite selling them.

    The Civic Si is awesome and exciting. The automatic Mazda3 may not be dull, but it is not awesome and exciting.

    Your Opinion May Vary,

    MidCow
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Rumors are that a 6-speed Si sedan might show up in 18 months. Hey, the 6-speed Accord sedan showed up this year! However, there is still some doubt about the sedan version because the normal Si looks for performance and styling and Honda is not sure what demographics a Si Sedan would attract. They would probably have to add a push-button simulated manual shift automatic to satisfy the sedate sedan owners. And for sure they would have to remove the cool colors: Rallye Red, Habanero Red Pearl, Fiji Blue Pearl and Royal Blue Pearl.

    Cheers Go Coupe! Go 6-speed!

    MidCow
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    gosteelerz said :

    If buy the Si, you are basically joining the boy-racer tuner crowd. You're imediate(sic) competion will not be the 3, it will be cars like the Cobalt SS, SRT-4's, WRX etc. in which case you will suffer in humiliation. Oh, I also forgot the 17 year old kid in his mommy's new RAV 4, better watch for those too.

    It would make more sense to Compare an Si to a 6 cyl Mustang which is about it's level of practicality. "


    LOL, you immedaitely join the tuner crowd.

    Actually , I look at the Civic Si as a fun upscale commuter car, similar to Integra GSR and CRX Si that I had in the past. The Cobalt SS and SRT-4 ( no longer made) are fast, but cheap and unrealiable cars. The WRX is another $10,000 more and is turbo based; turbo lag etc.

    You assume humliation, but maybe a person doesn't have racing in mind at all, maybe just the fun of driving. But compared to low powered cars such as a 92 Civic or a 2003 Protege the performance of a 2006 Civic or a 2006 Mazda 3 would be phenomenal. Much less the awesome, Civic Si.

    The last statement is the most ridiculous comparing a Mustange V6 to an Si. I had my last Ford (Taurus SHO)in 1990 and it was a great car for 2 1/2 years until it turned into a Ford. Ford service and Frod Customer support for out-of-state (no vaction) out-of-warranty cars is very bad. I will never have another Ford. and to compare a v6 Mustang to a Honda Civic Si was a JOKE right.

    Bottom line, I like the Honda Civic Si and you don't! So be it. But just because the Si is better than the Mazda 3 2.3L is no reason to diss it!

    Happy New Year,

    MidCow
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    Its not that people can't learn how to drive a manual - People buy cars with automatic transmissions because that is what they WANT. If you want a manual GREAT for you - but trying to tell people what they should drive makes you look like a complete jerk.

    I spend hours every week stuck in bumper to bumper traffic - that alone is reason enough (for me) to get an auto.

    IMO - Many of the people who drive manuals because they think they have better performance would actually be able to go from 0-60 faster with an auto tranny. Can't convince then that they are wrong - because they really do believe they are great drivers - think they must be REALLY MOVING FAST because you are REVVVVING the engine and POWER SHIFTING like crazy.
  • earthearth Member Posts: 76
    Drove LA freeways ( What a Joke ) to and from work, mostly stop, and go with a stick at 23 years of age, again at age 30. Stopped buying Stick shifts at that point. Not fun to drive in stop and go traffic using a stick. Never will buy a stick again, NEVER !! Some of you think shifting constently is called fun, ya right ....
  • mcapmcap Member Posts: 49
    Agreed. Everyone gets soo preachy about driving manuals. I have only owned manual cars. I never had an auto. However, after a couple of years in NYC traffic with a 5 spd I was ready for the change. And guess what, it has been much better.

    There are a lot of people who drive through light traffic and then tell us you can just stay in 1st or second gear. And how exactly does that work? The traffic hear starts at a dead stop, speads to 10 mph and then comes to a dead stop again. If you keep enough distance infront of you, cars will just change over and fill the space. Sometimes my commute took 2 hours of non-stop shifting.

    There is no comparision in terms of control, sportiness and fun. Stick wins. The manumatics are no subsitute either. But having an auto in traffic has been a good, good thing.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Everyone gets soo preachy about driving manuals.

    Amen to that. I think we'd be a little better off if we tried to walk in others' shoes once in awhile, rather than assuming that "what's OK for me must be OK for everyone else."

    Another reason these days to choose an automatic is that they are starting to get better fuel economy than stick shifs. The '06 Civic is a good example of that trend. I've noticed it on a few other newer cars too.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    If you want a manual GREAT for you - but trying to tell people what they should drive makes you look like a complete jerk.
    That's a little strong. If I had to guess, he's just trying to get people to try it out. If I had never driven a manual (upon request of my grandfather who told me I should learn) I would have just thought it another chore to add to driving. Instead, I found it to be fun. Do I drive a manual? No, I have two automatic equipped cars, from the company that makes the best manuals in the business (Honda). I had the option of getting a stick, but I also drive in rush hour daily so manual driving wouldn't be fun most of the time.

    IMO - Many of the people who drive manuals because they think they have better performance would actually be able to go from 0-60 faster with an auto tranny. Can't convince then that they are wrong - because they really do believe they are great drivers - think they must be REALLY MOVING FAST because you are REVVVVING the engine and POWER SHIFTING like crazy.


    A friend of mine drives like she's afraid to pass a bicycle, but she loves driving a stick. She currently has a manual explorer, and hates driving automatics. She doesen't power shift (or know what that term means), or rev the engine like crazy, she just likes the fin of a manual.
  • spinzerospinzero Member Posts: 91
    She doesen't power shift (or know what that term means), or rev the engine like crazy, she just likes the fin of a manual.

    There you described my wife. :) Although she drives fast enough to pass people in their Buicks.
  • gosteelerzgosteelerz Member Posts: 21
    Actually , I look at the Civic Si as a fun upscale commuter car, similar to Integra GSR and CRX Si that I had in the past. The Cobalt SS and SRT-4 ( no longer made) are fast, but cheap and unreliable cars. The WRX is another $10,000 more and is turbo based; turbo lag etc.

    You assume humiliation, but maybe a person doesn't have racing in mind at all, maybe just the fun of driving. But compared to low powered cars such as a 92 Civic or a 2003 Protege the performance of a 2006 Civic or a 2006 Mazda 3 would be phenomenal. Much less the awesome, Civic Si.


    It's because Honda made amazing cars like the Integra GSR that has made me a bit jaded about it's current offerings. And yes it is about driving fun, that's why I got the Protege. There was no fun to be had in a 7th gen Civic at the time.

    The last statement is the most ridiculous comparing a Mustang V6 to an Si. I had my last Ford (Taurus SHO)in 1990 and it was a great car for 2 1/2 years until it turned into a Ford. Ford service and Frod Customer support for out-of-state (no vaction) out-of-warranty cars is very bad. I will never have another Ford. and to compare a v6 Mustang to a Honda Civic Si was a JOKE right.

    Bottom line, I like the Honda Civic Si and you don't! So be it. But just because the Si is better than the Mazda 3 2.3L is no reason to diss it!


    I drew the comparison between the Mustang and the Si because the SI would be as useful at carrying a family around as a Mustang. Sure most Fords are notorious for reliability but the Mustang is not too bad.

    Bottom line is the Si is a couple of tenths quicker in a straight line than the 3, but gives up that advantage in handling and braking. As someone who obviously likes Hondas doesn't it sadden you to have to compare th SI coupe against the run-of-the mill Mazda.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "I wouldn't count on rebates on the Mazda3, except maybe some financing rebates. Mazda seems content to sell the Mazda3 at low volume but high profit. Maybe they have learned from Honda that holding off on rebates helps prop up resale values. A scan of prices on 2004 Mazda3's in my area shows they are holding their value very well, e.g. $16k for a '04 3i."

    Well thats because Mazda has a strong demand for the 3. Thry same can;t be said for other models in their line-up which have hefty rebates. Mazda builds good cars but with the exception of the 3 they can't sway the Honda and Nissan buyer away. Its all about supply and demand in regards to how many rebates a manufacturer offers on cars.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "They are also glossing over many complaints commonly heard on this board. They rave about the leather which, here on edmunds has been referred to as hard, cheap plastic. I have also read complaints in the Mazda forum about the non maintenance free battery, grooving on the rear rotors, shift problems between 1st and 2nd, the center console that really cuts into leg/knee room, a large rear blindspot, the uncessary funkly orange lights on the dash, and above all, consistent complaints about an A/C system that on some cars, is poor at best."

    I'm sure Honda owners have their complaints about their cars too. Not every car is trouble free. I like both Honda amd Mazda. I think both the Civic Coupe and Mazda 3 are some of the best cars that both Honda and Mazda have ever styled as a admirer of both companies.

    "Finally, you have to look at cars in the long term. The 6 was apparently very reliable until it was downgraded recently."

    In Consumer Reports CR reccomended the Mazda 6 Sedan 4 cyl(average reliability and the Mazda 6 wagon(above average reliability.) Cr didn't reccomend the 6 cyl 6 sedan(under average reliability and 6 hatch(below average reliability as well.)

    "Who knows what the long term viability of the 3 will be (although the civic is unproven for 06 as well)."

    The 3 has been reliable according to CR scoring above average reliability for 04 and 05. 05 models only had 3,000 miles on them of CR's survey however. Yeah the last generation(01-05)Civic did have first year bugs with the suspension for the couple of years of bodystyle but the last generation Civic did still have good reliability.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "IMO the '06 Civic is Honda's first move off the bland scale for the Civic in quite some time. For instance, notice how some people love the new exterior and interior and some people hate it. That is a sure sign of non-blandness."

    Backy, I'm with you 100% on this one because I even as a hard-core Honda fan I was shocked Honda went this bold with the styling. I;m talking about the Coupe models's styling. I think it looks pretty sharp. It may look unusual but at least its more sporty than the past 2 generation Civic's on the exterior.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    Hey backy-

    Although some folks on here refuse to accept it, the Mazda3 is holding its value quite well. I compared the '04 Civic and '04 Mazda3 and found that after two years, the Honda retained 83% of its original value and the Mazda3 retained 82%. Considering that Honda always has been (and probably always will be) the benchmark of residual value, I think that's a great showing for the Mazda. Unfortunately, the Mazda6 doesn't fare nearly as well. Interestingly, Mazda has offered a lot of rebates on the 6 and haven't on the 3, which supports your statement that not offering rebates does help prop up resale values.
  • hondamatichondamatic Member Posts: 26
    Civc Si , only two adults. Well actaully most of the time that is what I fgot the car for. But The Si and EX coupe can accomodate adults in the backseat. However, I wouldn't go on long trips. The backseat is actaully more roomy thatn the GSR and/ot BMW M3 sedan I had.

    Sorry, have to disagree with you about the EX coupe's backseat.
    I've sat in it after adjusting the front seat to my driving position and I'm not tall, under 5'10". The back seat is just as uncomfortable if not as unusable as those of "real" sports cars--only comfortable if you enjoy riding with your knees shoved into your armpits, or close to it. Even short trips in it would not be fun. Don't know about Si.

    Also sat in the back seat of a 06 BMW 325. That was also surprisingly cramped for a sedan of that size. Seems these cars just cost more every year, which is normal, but end up less practical.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    Everyone gets soo preachy about driving manuals.

    I completely respect every person's right to get an automatic or manual, whatever they prefer. As long as the carmakers give us a choice, I'm happy.

    I do think a manual is the more fun choice and its the one for me, but then again I only have a five mile commute each way daily. I drove a stick in stop and go traffic over an hour each way for years and I still didn't want an automatic, although I was 19 years old at that time. Who knows, if I had that kind of traffic now, even I might change my mind.

    But as it stands, I love my manual tranny! It was tough as hell to find, even on a Mazda3, but was well worth the trouble. FYI, the manual in the Civic is a gem, too.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    I don't think the Civic Si automatically makes you look like a member of the "Fast and Furious" crowd. It's a great looking car with an incredible engine, transmission and suspension.

    The main reason I chose a Mazda3 over the Civic is because the LX/EX didn't "do it" for me. My priorities and what I enjoy in an automobile vary from a lot of other folks. For instance, I was willing to sacrifice some fuel economy to get the exceptional handling of the Mazda3 with 17" wheels. To a lot of people (three times more from the sales figures), the Civic is obviously more appealing than the Mazda.

    The Si would be an awesome car to own, but I didn't have $20k+ to spend nor time to wait for one to be available. The Mazda only cost me $16k. I'm also not a fan of 2-door cars (not practical for me). The Si Sedan, however, will probably make me want to trade in my Mazda3. Until then, I'll just enjoy zoom zooming (albeit slower than in an Si). :blush:
  • mcapmcap Member Posts: 49
    It is funny how defensive we can get over our cars. I was myself probably only a few hours away from buying a Mazda3. The only reason I didn't was gas mileage and the fact that my last Civic was absolutely bullet proof and retained more value than you could believe. Couldn't bring myself to move away from Honda. The 3 is an awesome car though and great to drive. Both great cars for different reasons and the top of the class.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    I said behind myself in a EX Coupe and it was a little tight but bearable. The Si will be the same. If the EX or Si Coupe were going to be your only car and you regularly have more than two people riding, then yes you should probably consider another car such as the Civic sedan or Mazda 3 sedan or wagon.

    The Civic Si is no my only car and I don't plan to use it for long trips where I need to carry luggage and people.

    6-speed smooth shifting,

    MidCow
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    gosteelerz said:

    "Bottom line is the Si is a couple of tenths quicker in a straight line than the 3, but gives up that advantage in handling and braking. As someone who obviously likes Hondas doesn't it sadden you to have to compare th SI coupe against the run-of-the mill Mazda. "

    Let's see Mazdas whole slogan is "Zoom-Zoom" The run of the mill Mazada as you call it has a bigger engine than the even the Si at 2.3L 160 hp and 150 ft-lbs of torque. The Normal 1.8 liter 140 hp Civics get much better mileage than the Mazda 3 and almost exactly the same as the 2.0 liter 197 HP 139 ftlb Civic Si.

    Ha! Ha! ON the couple of tenths of second quicker. Some of the early reports on the Si performance were ulttra conservative, in actuallity the Si will be around 6.5-6.7 seconds 0-60 mph. The Mazda 3 with a manual in in the low 8.0 seconds from Auto Consumer Guide.

    I consider 1.3-1.5 seconds better time for 0-60mph to be vert substantial as opposed to "a couple of tenths".

    All of the Mazda 3 engines are bigger and offer more horsepower and torque than the DX,LX,EX Civics

    1.8L Civic 140 Hp, 128 ft-lb
    2.0L Mazda 150 Hp, 135 ft-lb
    2.0L Civic 197 Hp, 139 ft-lb
    2.3L Mazda 160 Hp, 150 ft-lb

    Bigger engine more torque, more horsepower, less MPG.

    6-speed smooth shifting,

    MidCow
  • gosteelerzgosteelerz Member Posts: 21
    Ha! Ha! ON the couple of tenths of second quicker. Some of the early reports on the Si performance were ulttra conservative, in actuallity the Si will be around 6.5-6.7 seconds 0-60 mph. The Mazda 3 with a manual in in the low 8.0 seconds from Auto Consumer Guide.

    You have taken the very worst numbers I have ever heard of for the the 3 and used it against the best, yet to be witnessed times in a magzine. I have seen anywhere from 7.4 secs to 7.8 secs for the 3 and 7.2 to 7.8 for the the SI. In all fairness the 7.8 was to 100 km/h (62 mph). As for the power to displacement issue, you will need to feed the Si premium fuel to get that high horsepower. BTW, there is negligable difference between the 2.0L Mazda3 fuel econ and the Civic.

    There is more to to engine's performance than peak HP. The broadness of the powerband is more important. The reason the Si has 6 gears is beacuse you are asking 139 ft.lbs to move a 2900 pound car.
  • hybrid04priushybrid04prius Member Posts: 4
    The Mazda 3 is a real sleeper. I think its a bargain and a much better choice than the Civic. Civics are everyplace and they have that image of a ghetto car with the fart mufflers slammed to the ground. I hope they don't do that to the Mazda 3. IMHO the Mazda 3 is an S40 in a little less expensive clothing. More refined, quieter than the Civic.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    It isn't more refined or queiter.
    It's faster because it has a bigger engine that uses much more more gas.
    140HP is a good amount of standard horsepower considering the optional engine used to be 127HP and even that was very adequate for commuting in a car that small.
    The Civic sedan is an economy commuter car and it is so silly that people are comparing and arguing about 0-60 times.
    When I test drive a car, I determine if it has enough power to get on an onramp quickly enough for my needs. I don't worry about how it compares in speed to other cars in a race.
    For the same $21K as the Mazda 3s, you could get a Neon SRT-4 if you are so concerned about track times and so little concerned about fuel economy or crash safety.
    I wonder why they didn't add a Neon SRT-4 to the comparison test?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Because the Neon is dead (, Jim).
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    Touche! Sadly, a local dealer has about 40 of them lined up on his back lot. You can get one for about $10k, though. =)
  • spinzerospinzero Member Posts: 91
    For the same $21K as the Mazda 3s, you could get a Neon SRT-4 if you are so concerned about track times and so little concerned about fuel economy or crash safety.

    Buying a car that gets 26/32 MPG and shares platform with a Volvo makes me not-concerned about fuel economy and safety?

    I know it's all relative, but come on. Some of you guys are trying to make the 3 look like a Cavalier with a Hemi. Is it SOOO wrong for economy car buyers to have a weee bit of fun? :cry:
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Hey Gosteelerz you said:

    "You have taken the very worst numbers I have ever heard of for the the 3 and used it against the best, yet to be witnessed times in a magzine. I have seen anywhere from 7.4 secs to 7.8 secs for the 3 and 7.2 to 7.8 for the the SI. In all fairness the 7.8 was to 100 km/h (62 mph). As for the power to displacement issue, you will need to feed the Si premium fuel to get that high horsepower. BTW, there is negligable difference between the 2.0L Mazda3 fuel econ and the Civic."

    2.0 i Mazda = man (28/35) auto (26/34)
    1.8 Honda = man (30/38) auto (30/40)

    NOT NEGLIGIBLE! And in the real world Honda makes their EPA estimates and The Mazda 3i ZOOMs below!!!

    Please post you source of the faster Mazda 3 numbers. I have never seen any posts on the Mazda 3 faster than 8.0 seconds. I have found that Auto Consumer Reports to be pretty consistent on mpg, 0-60 and other measurements.

    There have only been a few reviews of the Si and most that have actually driven it are less than 7 seconds. Car and Driver hasn't really driven it and bases it on Honda's original high estimate of 7.3 seconds. Are you sure you aren't quoting the first conservative Honda SEMA predictions and/or the previous generation Si ?

    Gosteelerz also said: "There is more to to engine's performance than peak HP. The broadness of the powerband is more important. The reason the Si has 6 gears is beacuse you are asking 139 ft.lbs to move a 2900 pound car."

    The Car has an 8,000 rpm redline with a 8,500 rpm fuel cut-off. You have obviously never owned and long term driven a VTEC engine. I had a GSR previously , mildly modified and a except for pur straight-away it was actually faster than the M3 ( real one BMW) that I had at the time. The reason for the six gears has nothing to do with the Honda power-band which you obviuosly don't understand. By the way the first 5 gears are close-ratio and the 6th gear is a higher, highway cruising gear.

    Civic Si rules!

    MidCow
  • lrw1948lrw1948 Member Posts: 1
    I test drove one in Houston in the middle of the summer. The A/C system was hopeless. Then my son started dating a girl who drove her Mazda 3 to Houston from NY. The A/C in her car is just as hopeless. From what I can tell googling around on the internet, this ia s well-known problem that Mazda refuses to fix for existing Mazda3 owners.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Since you like CR... when CR tested the Mazda3i ('04) and the Civic EX ('05 model), they achieved 30 mpg overall with the 3i and 29 mpg overall with the Civic, both equipped with automatics. (Note that 29 mpg is below the EPA average mpg for the Civic, while 30 mpg is above the EPA average mpg for the 3i.) Now, the EPA fuel economy for the '06 Civic automatic (40) is a bit higher than for the '05 model (38). But will that translate into a big increase over the 30 mpg posted by the 3i? I guess we'll have to wait for CR's test of the '06 Civic to find out.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Wrong Magazine! Here is a link to Auto Consumer Reports. It is a great research resource: http://auto.consumerguide.com/

    Also the 2006 Honda is a new generation with much better features and much better mileage. By the way is is MTCOTY.

    Cheers,

    MidCow

    P.S.- Since you own two Hyundais, you'll be glad to hear this. I actually saw a couple of new Hyundai V6 Sonatas yesterday and they were pretty impressive both in looks and acceleration. Hyundai is on the move!
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    So just because it's not Auto Consumer Reports, and doesn't jive with your opinion, it doesn't count?

    The 2006 Civic doesn't get much better mileage than the 2005. Actually, the stick shift versions are almost exactly the same, and the automatic 2006 is 2 mpg (5 percent) better on the highway, according to the EPA. Even though the engine on the 2006 may be more efficient than on the 2005, it has a few hundred more pounds of car to pull along.
  • audia8qaudia8q Member Posts: 3,138
    These comments are from Autoweek concerning the Civic..I think they apply to this discussion.

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051226/FREE/51214002/1005/V- EHICLEREVIEWS
  • gosteelerzgosteelerz Member Posts: 21
    NOT NEGLIGIBLE! And in the real world Honda makes their EPA estimates and The Mazda 3i ZOOMs below!!!

    This is not entirely true. Please see a report by consumer's union that contradicts that.

    link title

    Upon further review the spread between the 2 cars is 0.6 secs on average based on reviews by major players. So I give you the nod on straight ahead perfomance but that is only half of the equation, there is still handling which goes to the 3 even without dedicated summer tires. The 3 is a fantastic handling car whether you are discussing numbers or subjective feel. Every publication has raved about it. Again we are comparing a useful 4 door sedan against the fabled "Si" coupe. I'm not trying to bash the Si, if Honda had put the 197 HP motor and beefed up suspension in the sedan it then would be a truly compelling car.

    I have a fairly good grasp of how Honda makes it's power but still stand behind my assertion that "fatness" of the powerband is just as important. Let's dig up that 6 cyl mustang again. It has a 4 litre motor that makes a whopping 210 HP. That is only 13 more than the Si yet it has to pull 400 more lbs with 1 less gear. You may dispute this, but from all tests I have seen the Mustang is the quicker car. Why? because it has gobs of torque from 1500 RPM's all the way to 5000 RPM's.

    BTW nice taste in cars, the GSR and M3. If I had all the money in the world I would still find myself a mint 98' M3.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    I'm not trying to rude, but it's called Consumer Guide Automotive. Calling it Auto Consumer Reports would make it very easy to confuse with Consumer Reports magazine.

    Here are several published 0-60 figures for the Mazda3-

    Car and Driver 1/04- 7.4 seconds
    Motorweek Online- 7.7 seconds
    Intellichoice- 7.73 seconds
    Motor Trend 6/04- 7.8 seconds

    Slightly better than 8.0 seconds.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    You have taken the very worst numbers I have ever heard of for the the 3 and used it against the best, yet to be witnessed times in a magzine. I have seen anywhere from 7.4 secs to 7.8 secs for the 3 and 7.2 to 7.8 for the the SI. In all fairness the 7.8 was to 100 km/h (62 mph). As for the power to displacement issue, you will need to feed the Si premium fuel to get that high horsepower. BTW, there is negligable difference between the 2.0L Mazda3 fuel econ and the Civic.

    Motor Trend tested a Civic EX sedan and achieved 8.0 seconds to 60 miles per hour. Call me crazy, but a car with a race-tuned engine, six speed gearbox, and 60 more horsepower is going to be considerably faster (more than a second) to sixty than that EX sedan. I believe mid 6s are definitely possible in stock form.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    Interesting report by Consumer Reports. Here are the results, for those who don't feel like flipping thru all those report pages.

    It seems that CR got better city fuel economy from the Mazda, better highway fuel economy from the Civic. They also did significantly better than EPA highway ratings on the Mazda.

    Consumer Report fuel economy testing-


    Civic EX 4AT- EPA ratings- 31/38
    CR overall - 29
    CR city - 21
    CR highway - 40
    CR 150 trip- 35 (150 mile trip average)

    Mazda3 i 4AT- EPA ratings- 26/34
    CR overall - 30
    CR city - 23
    CR highway - 38
    CR 150 trip- 32

    Also, just FYI, here are their numbers for the 5-speed manual Mazda3 i they tested. They didn't test a manual Civic, so there are no numbers to compare with.

    Mazda3 i 5MT- EPA ratings- 28/35
    CR overall - 33
    CR city - 24
    CR highway - 42
    CR 150 trip- 36

    I must admit, that the 3 s doesn't do quite as well in fuel economy. Those extra horses and torque do come at a price. I'd like to see some real world numbers on a manual Civic and manual 3 s.
  • gosteelerzgosteelerz Member Posts: 21
    Motor Trend tested a Civic EX sedan and achieved 8.0 seconds to 60 miles per hour. Call me crazy, but a car with a race-tuned engine, six speed gearbox, and 60 more horsepower is going to be considerably faster (more than a second) to sixty than that EX sedan. I believe mid 6s are definitely possible in stock form.

    Where did you find these numbers. To be honest, I have not been able to find a single test with numbers on a stick, regular, Civic. For such a high profile car it's been hard to get the numbers on it. I am starting to wonder if there is a conspiracy. Car and Driver has yet to test the bread and butter version of the Civic, what gives?
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    An EX 5-speed manual was tested in 1/06 issue of Motor Trend as part of their Car Of The Year testing.
  • gosteelerzgosteelerz Member Posts: 21
    I must admit, that the 3 s doesn't do quite as well in fuel economy. Those extra horses and torque do come at a price. I'd like to see some real world numbers on a manual Civic and manual 3 s.

    That works out about $100 a year for the average driver, a real deal breaker. If I was buying a furnace or a fridge then this would be a consideration.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    Exactly, I don't think for someone who likes both cars that it would be a deal breaker. Certainly didn't sway me away from the 3 s.

    If fuel economy is the only concern a buyer has and it matters more than anything else, get a Corolla! They get 41mpg, but it's my understanding that a driver can die of boredom. :blush:
  • hondamatichondamatic Member Posts: 26
    What about a Corolla with a stick?
    Even if the driver's bored he still needs to pay enough attention to shift.
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    Go take a look at the Mazda3 MPG thread - there are some reports of MPG that are over 35 - with the 2.3L engine - but also posts that are close to 20 MPG. Low readings are almost always with the auto tranny.

    I spent most of the summer getting between 17 and 19 MPG with my Mazda3 S sedan. Most of my miles are city - but still 17 MPG is pretty poor - when I use my full size 4x4 Pickup with a 5.3L V8 - for the same miles - I get right at 15. (I admit I may drive the Mazda3 a little harder in the curves)

    Sure - "your MPG will vary" but it seems like your risk of getting a very low MPG car is MUCH higher if you take a chance on a Mazda3.

    I only drive the Mazda3 about 9,000 per year so its not that big of a deal to me - but if I was a commuter that put on 30K a year it would change my mind - $125 a month more for gas is 1/3 of a car payment.

    It really sucks when you only get 220 miles out of a tank of gas - Mazda should have put in a larger gas tank.
  • lmp180psulmp180psu Member Posts: 399
    I have seen the reports of high and low mileage also, but I may be an outcast when it comes to mileage. During the spring-fall, I averaged about 30 mpg (2.3 auto), and so far in the winter I am around 28 mpg. I drive on one-lane roads 35-55 mph, and have a few (maybe 7-8 lights) on my 20 mile each way work commute.

    If I was looking for a coupe, then an Si would certainly be on my list, but having to use premium fuel would make me think twice. The increased price of premium fuel vs regular for the 3 might offset the better mpg for the Si.
  • twa1twa1 Member Posts: 1
    Many people have brought up the fact that you can buy an SI and a years worth of gas for the price of the 3, so I won't. Bottom line, $2400 is a big price gap. And the Civic comes pretty loaded already. As for the argument that you can delete the sunroof on the 3... the Civic EX comes standard with a sunroof. If you want to delete it on the 3, then price compare it with the Civic LX. It's not $1000 bucks difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.