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
The Si is a sports coupe. It's not much of an anology to say it's a great value (although it is) because it's comparing apples to oranges. The Civic and Mazda3 are considered compact sedans and that is what this board is about.
The Sandman
Sport....$22,800
GT.......$24,515
I think the Sport Mazdaspeed3 is more of a direct comparo with the Si, which is $20,840. So, about a $2K difference. Not bad, considering the over 50hp and 141 lb tq more then the Si.
Meade
GT.......$24,515
What's the difference in Sport and GT; interior trim and such?
Just to clarify: 3s touring and higher get the same tires as the hatch
No, The Si is the "elite" trim you can say, for the U.S Civic, so they do compare.
honda is amazing at sucking out the most power of a naturally aspirated engine. (Sorry 160 horsepower out of a 2.3 is not the most amazing thing ever, even considering 150 pounds of torque
Well, you are only part correct. While Honda can get good HP out of engines, they produce little to no torque. I believe the Civic Si (Acura RSX- Type-s) engine produces 197 hp but at a staggering 7800 RPM's, who revs their car like that to get power on a regular basis?? But a wimpy 139 ft. lbs. of torque, at yet another high RPM, 6100. I would not call that amazing, either. Nor is 160 hp out of a 2.3, but, it does the job, and smashes the Civic DX, LX, EX.
Mazdaspeed is mazdas elite force i guess you could say.
Actually, its becoming more or less an added trim level, like the Si, as you call it.
but then again if it was a mazda 1.8 it would make about 120 horsepower
Next time you post, it would be a curtious to all of us if you did your homework. Mazda had a 1.8L engine in the mid to 90's until 2005 that produced 142 HP, naturally aspirated. Seems the 2006 Civic is a bit behind?
Even mazda reports on their website a low six second 0-60 time for the ms3,
Actually, the chief designer of the MS3 made the first claim on a sub-6.0 second 0-60.
Probably too stiff for most people who buy 3's and the tuner crowd hasn't really taken to the 3 the way they have to pretty much anything honda
Honda's have not really been "tuned" since the 96-00 Civic. 01-05 Civic's remained virtually stock, and "tuner" people turned to spend their money on boosted cars, like the WRX starting in '02. I have not really seen any "tuned" Accords since '97 MY. Why buy a Honda to add bolt-on exhaust, and CAI when you can buy a boosted vehicle that will smoke basically any Honda?
And it will show that honda is a true force to be reckoned with and will always be synonymous with the word 'sport compact', and why it garners such attention to its products by fans and critics alike.
Well, I can kinda agree with you there. Honda does have a good rep in performance, but, has failed to evolve to the extent that other manufactures have in performance, like Subaru, Mazda, and VW.
Thanks, rorr. Posting how you were landing in the wrong place led me straight to the problem. I appreciate it!
Um, good question. I know that what SHOULD have been the Civic vs. Mazda3 thread has looked suspiciously like the Sentra vs Civic thread for quite some time (perhaps as much as a week?). Since I'm never in the Sentra vs. Civic thread (at least not intentionally ) and only infrequently in the Civic vs. Mazda3 thread, it's hard to say. But a large number of 'off topic' posts from late last week were possibly due to some confusion from other posters.
A side note (and I know this isn't the right place for this): ever since the Inside Line forums landing has changed over to this new "Car Space" deal, I've had a VERY hard time finding the stuff I'm interested in on the Car Space Forums landing. I've bookmarked the Inside Line forums landing page where (to me anyway) it seems much easier to jump around from "News and Views" to "Coupes/Convertibles" to "Future Vehicles" to "Hatchbacks" etc. etc.
Probably just me..... :sick:
Yes, we've undergone some major changes over the past few months, no doubt about that. You might want to visit the Forums Software discussion to catch up on what's going on as well as ask any navigational questions you have.
I keep one browser bookmark for my Message Center and a couple other bookmarks for the landing page and main site. I have no idea if that's the best way to deal with the changes, but it works for me.
I have a feeling that the Sentra vs Civic discussion morphing into the Civic vs Mazda3 discussion is a mystery that will never be solved. But at least it's fixed!! :P
As far as what compares to a mazda 3, the fact that type r isnt here in the us doesn't mean that just because mazda speed is that that doens't make it a more direct comparison. We are talking what the company offers to consumers in general not just here. But that will probably be used as a counterpoint again anyway.
Do a little homework yourself; the 1.8 produced 133 horsepower at the most, until 1999.
Mind telling what MPG that 1.8 L yielded? 22CITY/28HWY vs. 30CITY/40HWY for the Honda. This was in the 2000 Mazda with the 1.8L 140 horsepower and less torque than a Civic. It got a whopping 2 hp boost in 2001, making it have 2 horsepower more than a Civic, with 8-12 MPGs lower than the Civic that weighs 250 lbs more.
I don't think I'm buying your statement about Honda being behind.
Ok, and a Honda with a 1.8L makes 140 hp and 40 MPG. That's a difference of 14% of economy for an extra 5% of power. Considering these are compact cars, many people want economy over power, especially when power is adequate in all but the most basic of cars these days.
I know you never made an economy claim, but you did state that Honda seemed "behind" by referencing the fact that Mazda was making more horsepower in the mid-90s from the same size engine(1.8L); not true. When Mazda did start making the same horsepower as the Civic in 1999(140 hp, less torque than Civic though), it had economy that was MUCH lower than the heavier Civic (by 10 MPG or so)...
That's why I took issue with Honda being "behind" Mazda, when to me, it seems to be the other way around.
I was almost certain the mazda 1.8L made 140+ in the mid 90's, however, I forgot the 140+ came after VV-T was added. My bad!
The previous posters initial post was so off, I had to slap something in there! lol
At 6'4", I couldn't handle a compact nearly as well as I could the much larger Accord. I actually loved the styling of the Civic, inside and out (not everyone does, which is ok), but I fit better in the "ole man car" Accord much more comfortably.
Best regards,
thegrad
The 2002-2003 ProtegeES and Protege5 both delivered 130 hp. The turbo of the Mazdaspeed Protege bumped up that number to 170hp.
Mazda is using the turbo once again to pump up its horsepower numbers to the 250hp range for its current Mazdaspeed3, Mazdaspeed6 and the CX7.
Most HP any Protege had was 130 and that was 2001 and beyond.
The 2003.5 Mazdaspeed Protege was a 2.0L Turbo with 170hp. Thank you very much.
What's the point in what max hp was available in the Protege 5 years ago? Did I miss something?
What's next - who had the bigger disk brake rotors in 2002?
Whether it was TRUE or not is open to debate.....
I really like the Mazda 3. Actually, I like it more than the civic. I test drove both and I was stunned by how much better the Mazda felt.
But, the fuel mileage of the Civic makes me want it. So I figured I would buy that. But then, I found out some interesting information.
My grandma actually has an 06 Civic EX Sedan and its an Automatic. Shes been averaging 33 MPG. My friend has an 05 Mazda 3s with an Automatic...she averages 28. Now, that difference doesnt seem so large anymore. On paper, the civic gets 9 more on the highway than the 3. Yet, in real life, its only getting 5. And I know my grandma drives her civic a lot easier than my friend drives her mazda. :P And they pretty much drive the same places. To get anywhere around here, you have to use the highway. They both work in the same town as each other, which is about 20 miles each way and its all Highway. So, it seems maybe the real world difference between the two really isnt that big.
If it isn't to much of a difference, I would buy the mazda over the civic in a heartbeat. Does anyone have any information on these two and their gas mileage in real world driving?
Also, I was thinking about maybe leasing. Can anyone tell me around how much it would cost me a month to lease a $19,700 Civic Ex, and a $19,500 Mazda 3s? I would get a 36month/12,000 miles a year lease for both.
Thank you very much.
That's not a fair assumption to push on someone however...each and every dealer will be different. Different sales tactics, and simply, different people. We chose Honda BECAUSE of its wonderful dealer service at our local store. They always let us test drive on our own, mutltiple times, and don't seem discouraged when you tell them you are cross shopping, and may still like the competitor better. Not pushy/needy like salespeople around here can easily be (as seen at a local Ford dealer we've dealt with).
Experiences with just your dealer or a few sales people is not a fair sample, and certainly not worth giving up a test drive of a car for.
Toyota and Honda statistically do not have great customer satisfaction at their dealers overall, you can throw Mazda in that mix as well. But, that does not mean there are not dealers that reputable, honest, and actually care about you..like my store!! :shades:
I could not agree more. The salesman who ended up selling me my current vehicle could not have been more slimey (it's a long story, I did the real negotiating over the phone with the manager after a horrible experience with said slime). OTOH, every single experience I have had in the service department has been outstanding.
You only have to deal with a salesperson long enough to acquire the vehicle. Then you'll never have to see him again. I noticed in my first routine maintenance trips that the jerk was no longer there. And the experience with the manager was perfect. That told me that the salesman's attitude wasn't coming from his management.
Anyway, to exclude a brand in general due to a bad experience with a salesman at a dealership could well be cutting off your nose to spite your face. IF, of course, you were genuinely interested in the brand in the first place.
So you rewarded him/them with a sale???
The short version:
It was a vehicle that was really hot and it was the only dealership I could purchase it from without having to go 100 miles away.
I waited a couple of days until I calmed down and then I called and asked for the sales manager. He couldn't have been nicer nor more concerned about what had happened to me (it was bad, right down to the hide-my-keys trick). We went back and forth on the price (not much room for an in-demand vehicle from the only local dealer), and I really got a great deal. He said to me he'd like to hire me to sell cars! (Hah, not me!!)
So yeah, I did.
I have many reasons why. It all started with the test drive. I first drove a blue automatic civic coupe Ex. Sticker price was $20,100. It drove very nicely. I was very very impressed. It was EXTREMELY quiet, solid, smooth, and a lot faster than I expected. The dashboard was strange, but I could get use to it. The controls worked very well, EVERYTHING worked well. I was very satisfied when I stepped out of the car.
Then I went over to the Mazda dealer which was right across the street. It was all over after that.
I test drove a True Red Mazda 3s automatic. As soon as I started it up I knew I was going to like it. The engine was more refined than the civics. Not by much, but it was smoother when accelerating. You couldn't tell either of these engines were on at idle. It was as quiet as the civic at idle and when cruising. They both get loud when accelerating hard, but the Civics engine seems to whine unlike the 3's engine, which sounds sporty. Get up and go is the main difference between the two cars. Off the line, the mazda felt twice as fast as the civic. (which felt fast itself) Going up hills, the mazda easily held the hill at high speeds, not something I could say about the civic. I also managed to take both cars up a mountain road which is near both dealerships. The mazda 3 held 70 up the hill and it didn't seem like I was pushing it too hard. The civic struggled to hold 60. I had the throttle mashed to the floor the entire hill. I never floored the mazda once. So thats impressive. There are alot of hills around here, so that power will come in handy. I also noticed the civic didn't like to downshift. When pulling out onto the highway, I would floor the car and would wait for quite a while for a downshift. It seemed confused. Doing the same thing in the 3, the transmission quickly downshifted and got to up to speed much faster than the civic ever could. And handling is no comparison. I took the mazda 3 around the same corners I took the civic on, and trust me, the 3 kills the civic in handling. Not saying the civic can't handle, it took those corners just fine. But the 3 took them A LOT better. This might be a good thing or a bad thing to some, but the 3 has REALLY fast steering. Its very light at parking lot speeds, much lighter than the civics which was surprisingly heavy. But up at highway speeds, the slightest touch of the wheel will put the car over in the other lane. Some might call it twitchy, but I like it. Especially when going around corners. :shades:
Of course, the 3 wont get as good fuel economy. But, I can live with that. So far I've been really impressed with my figures. First tank I got 27.6. Second tank I got 29.2. Third tank I got 28.7. And I'm working on my fourth tank now. :P They both are really good cars. They are quiet, refined, high quality, and they both feel like much more than their price would suggest they are. It just seems that the 3 matches the civic on everything, yet beats it in a lot of others things. I really haven't found anything wrong with the 3 yet.
On a side note, I really didn't like the view out of the civic. I could not see the hood. Which I could get use to, but it just seemed like that dash went on forever and made it hard to see. The A pillars are HUGE! When I was pulling out onto the main road, the A pillar actually blocked an entire Ford Explorer that was heading towards me. Thats scary. You sit up much higher in the 3 and have great visibility. (the 3 had better seats too) Both cars are hard to see out of the back. They both have high trunks and my 3 has a spoiler that makes it even harder. To give some credit to the civic, I did really like the civics sliding armrest feature, and its MANY storages spots. Its cupholders are pretty good too.
So, I'm happy with my decision. The 3 is truly a much better car for me. I wanted something fun. It provides a whole lot of that and more. I got a fairly good deal on it too. Sticker price was $19,900. The got the dealer to give it to me for $19,300 before taxes and all of that. The Honda dealer wasn't budging on the sticker. They were selling it for full sticker price, or they weren't selling it to me at all. So whatever Honda, someone else can buy that car. I'm happy with my 3!
I felt the same way when we first bought the Mazda3 - and even after 33 months of ownership - its still fun to drive.
Since my daugher has taken over the Mazda3 as her car - I don't get to drive it as much - so when I do get my hands on it - its even more fun than before.
Both cars are very satisfying economy cars, which fit her need for a more powerful engine and mine for excellent fuel economy. We've found both with our 3s and LX, so we're a very happy family. The wife did let me know recently that her next ride will be of a more luxury small car i.e., a Lexus I350 or a BMW 328. But time will tell!
The Sandman
Whoa! Those vehicles are double the prices of the cars you drive! Should be a hoot though!
Agreed. After their first year, I still find them to be an excellent choice in terms of handling. They are a bit noisy. I also use BF Goodrich Winter Slaloms and swear by them for our Canadian climate. Both offer excellent value.
Which Michelin's did you end up getting?
Regarding the harshness, did you try adjusting the tire pressure? I like a firm ride so I routinely add a few more psi; 32 psi is the regular setting, 35 is what I use. This transforms the tires; I liken it to moving from soft slippers to tight track shoes.
1. The smallest engine you can get in the Mazda is bigger and more powerful than the only engine you can get in the Civic. Granted, the Civic gets better gas mileage, but the difference is less noticeable when you compare manual transmission cars. Besides, fuel economy isn't that high of a priority for me, so any car in this class would be good enough.
2. The Mazda 3 had sharp-looking cloth seats, while the ones in the Civic EX looked cheap. I don't expect Lexus quality in a 17-18K car, but the Civic EX is the highest trim level. It should look better inside than an entry-level 3i. Sure, the space-cockpit dashboard looked nice, but it made me feel like Honda dressed up the dash for Internet and magazine photos while neglecting the seats to cut costs.
The Honda is still a good car, but I think the Mazda is a better value. It had everything I wanted (power windows/locks, side airbags, ABS, 4-wheel discs) for $17,145, plus more power and sharper reflexes than the Honda. The only MT Civics I could find were coupe EX models, which had extra "frills" like a fancy audio system and a moonroof but lacked four doors and good seats.
Must depend on where you live? At our local dealership, there were 4 manuals on the lot at the first of Decemeber(this is a small dealership off the beaten path) - I think two were coupes and two were sedans. This is out of the total of maybe 20 Civics on the lot.