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

1151618202126

Comments

  • carfanatic007carfanatic007 Member Posts: 267
    Buy a Civic Si with 197 hp and it will wipe out any Mazda, a 3S or a 6s. It only costs 20,840 and is a great value. That is only $1,000 more than the EX Civic.
  • mongoose65mongoose65 Member Posts: 31
    Exactly why I bought the Mazda3S. The civic was blah. The Si is a two door coupe with minimal storage space. The Mazda fell sweetly in between with performance, handling, power AND still room for the baby's car seat, my bass guitar, golf clubs and oh yeah, a case of diapers.

    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.
  • sandman46sandman46 Member Posts: 1,798
    We have both of these cars & the tire sizes are the same...205/55/16's. The 3i probaly has the smaller size tires I suspect. Would have preferred a 60 or 65 series tire, as I prefer the better ride with more of a sidewall. But we're still very happy with our individual choices of cars. The wife prefers the 2.3 engine with it's better takeoff, while i wanted the extra mileage from the 1.8 engine, as my commute is only 9 miles each way of stop & go traffic vs. her I-95 commute.

    The Sandman :):)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Pricing came out yesterday for the Mazdaspeed3

    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.
  • mdaffronmdaffron Member Posts: 4,421
    Keep in mind that the Mazda3 hatch's tires are an inch larger than the sedan's -- 205/50-17s.

    Meade
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Sport....$22,800
    GT.......$24,515


    What's the difference in Sport and GT; interior trim and such?
  • mrblonde49mrblonde49 Member Posts: 626
    Keep in mind that the Mazda3 hatch's tires are an inch larger than the sedan's -- 205/50-17s. "

    Just to clarify: 3s touring and higher get the same tires as the hatch
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    actually its not. Mazda 3 s is the direct comparo with the si, be it the current coupe or future sedan. Mazdaspeed is mazdas elite force i guess you could say. Honda has been doing little editions of civics and even older accords under a "type r" badge. The Honda civic type r will be a three door hatchback with a little more engine tweaking and more suspension upgrades and weight reduction. This is going to be the mazdaspeed3's competition and unfortunately will not even be coming to the usa. While mazda feels that it can only up the ante with a bigger and powerful engine, 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. Honda could have stuck the current accord's engine in the civic and followed mazda's zoom zoom approach but they realized they could still swing many buyers to the big h despite the displacement difference between the two cars. Makes you wonder how many people would by a 3 if it had a 1.8 litre engine. ;) but then again if it was a mazda 1.8 it would make about 120 horsepower Well no maybe not. they'd find the need to turbo it or something.) SO if we were to make a proper comparison, the civic type r would probably still best the mazda speed 3 even though it still does not have the same kind of power. The engine has been boosted to put out about 15 more horses and a few more pounds of torque but the weight of the car has been significantly decreased. Even mazda reports on their website a low six second 0-60 time for the ms3, hardly amazing considering the cars horsepower and torque numbers. I'm sure it will handle great though. 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. The targeted audience for this car i think will be very small. At any rate, i just hope that edmunds decides to do a rematch after the si sedan hits the market after seeing what the comparo has spawned in these forums. Then we will see the true winner in all its glory. 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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Mazda 3 s is the direct comparo with the si, be it the current coupe or future sedan.

    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.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    For a little while, the Sentra vs Civic discussion was appearing under this title. That has been fixed.

    Thanks, rorr. Posting how you were landing in the wrong place led me straight to the problem. I appreciate it! :)
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    pat - no problemo. I was just mighty confused for a bit because I couldn't seem to find the "real" Civic vs. Mazda3 thread....
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    With good reason!! I wish I knew what the heck happened. Do you happen to know when you saw it here last?
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Do you happen to know when you saw it here last?"

    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 :blush:) 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:
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Thanks.

    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
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    I think it's hardly fair to say that honda has fallen behind companies like VW subaru or mazda for that matter. How evovled can a company like volkswagen be when they have a boosted gti that makes the same horsepower as a naturally aspirated si? Besides in a direct comparo, all of vw's torque only helped it accelerate just as fast as the si did despite its 139 lbs of torque therefore obviously showing that having 197 horsies at 7800 rpm isn't bad. AND shifting a car that high is pretty exhilirating so i don't see why that would be such a big issue. And to be honest with you, you can see plenty of 'tuned' hondas since 00. just look outside for goodness sakes! And i'm also curious about your mazda 1.8...this engine was offered until 2005? In what the protege? Because my fiance has a 2003 protege five which had no engine tweaking over the base protege and it's a 2.0 that produces and astounding 130 horsepower.

    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.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    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?

    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.
  • eldainoeldaino Member Posts: 1,618
    man graduate thank you! You worded it much better than i did.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    My comment was based on the previous posters comment about Mazda producing a 1.8L with more then 120 hp with out boosting it. That's all. I never made the fuel economy claim, or torque. We are also looking at an engine design by Mazda that is nearly 10 years old vs. Honda's newer 1.8L Of course there will be better fuel economy. Mazda's 2.0L with 148 hp makes 35 mpg (new SAE HP rating). See the improvement in engine technology?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Mazda's 2.0L with 148 hp makes 35 mpg

    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    You could look at it that way. I see your point, and respect it. I personally will take the extra performance over the 5 mpg.

    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
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I understand, and the post that you had replied to was iffy on its claims, so no harm there. I can see taking the 2.3L 160 hp engine over the Civic's 1.8L 140 hp for a 5 or 6MPG drop, but I guess you and I differ on the 2.0L 148hp Mazda vs. the 1.8L 140 hp Civic. 8 horses isn't much to me, but 5 MPG is (college budget here). But, I have no room to talk on wanting the lesser-mileage car. I drive an Accord that gets 24/34mpg (although I frequently get above 35 MPG on trips).

    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
  • carfanatic007carfanatic007 Member Posts: 267
    Actually the Protege ES, which was the top of the line had 122 HP. 140 was from the limited edition MP3. Most HP any Protege had was 130 and that was 2001 and beyond. Thank you very much.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    Before the Mazda3 there was the Protege.

    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The 1.8L 142hp Mazda engine thegrad and I were referring to was the 1.8L placed in the MX-5 Miata. No reference was made to the Protege, which made 130hp.

    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.
  • carfanatic007carfanatic007 Member Posts: 267
    Was not talking about a turbo Mazda Protege, the standard one was 122 on the EX which was the max until 2001, when they had 130. Mazdaspeed protege was limited in production that is why I didn't mention it. The MP3 Protege had 140.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Okay, I'm lost.

    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?
  • tazerelitazereli Member Posts: 241
    Which had a better name. the original Honda CVCC or Mazda GLC (Great Little Car). :P
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Gotta go with GLC.

    Whether it was TRUE or not is open to debate..... ;)
  • jarrod06civicjarrod06civic Member Posts: 9
    I'm having a tough time choosing between the two of these cars.I was looking for some help.

    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.
  • spsnackspsnack Member Posts: 2
    According to Consumer Reports, the real world MPG difference between the Civic and the 3 i is only 1 MPG. For the 3 s I would imagine 5-7 MPG to be the average real world difference. Of course individual cars will vary.
  • fl2113fl2113 Member Posts: 2
    I am a 3 owner with the 2.0 automatic, and on my very first tank I got 26 mpg.. A friend of mine who has an 06 Civic coupe says he's getting about 28, and he's had his for almost a year, so it's all broken in. I don't usually drive as hard as I did for the first few trips in the 3, but it just makes you want to go fast. For me, the styling and fun-factor of the 3 did it, and the price of the 3 i touring I got compared to the offer I got on the Civic LX (almost $1000 in favor of the 3) more than makes up for the little difference in mpg. Those two things sealed the deal. It's easy to find a 3 with side airbags too
  • bigfurbigfur Member Posts: 649
    Biggest reason i would not go with a Honda has very litte to do with the vehical itself (even thought i think its ugly). Every time i have dealt with a Honda salesperson they have come off as arrogant and rather uppity, as if its a waste of there time to talk to me since i dont already own a honda. Mazda sales people have been very nice and straight forward, and i like that.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Biggest reason i would not go with a Honda has very litte to do with the vehical itself (even thought i think its ugly). Every time i have dealt with a Honda salesperson they have come off as arrogant and rather uppity, as if its a waste of there time to talk to me since i dont already own a honda. Mazda sales people have been very nice and straight forward, and i like that.

    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    It's unfortunate that dealers can turn potential customers away from a brand. I do not agree with not buying a brand because of a bad apple among the bunch, unless it seems to happen every time you shop that brand at different locations, and continue to get bad service.

    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:
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    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.

    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.
  • audia8qaudia8q Member Posts: 3,138
    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).

    So you rewarded him/them with a sale???
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    I knew I'd have to tell this story. ;)

    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. :blush:
  • silvermzda3silvermzda3 Member Posts: 17
    i have had a 3 for 2 months now and love it! i did not test drive a civic beofre my purchase, and i felt left out, so when i was getting my oil changed I went across the street and drove a 4 dr civic ex, the top of the line. There must be something about the honda that is apealing because they sell so many of them, but to me it felt like an economy car, there was no comparison, I prefere the sporty solid feeling of the mazda. It just goes to show, everyone has different expectations, so, be sure to test drive before you buy, I got lucky, i have no regrets. And the dash set up for the honda, put me in the not like catagorie.
  • jarrod06civicjarrod06civic Member Posts: 9
    Well, after a very long time of researching and test driving both of these cars, I finally decided to buy the Mazda 3.

    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! :)
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    Maybe you should change your screen name to jarrod06mazda3.

    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.
  • sandman46sandman46 Member Posts: 1,798
    We're lucky that we have both a '05 3s and an '06 Civic LX. I drive the LX 90% of the time and love the car. But when I get to drive the wife's 3s, it's driving but on a different dimension. The car's lightning fast when it needs to be and shifts much smoother than the Civic. And after putting on 4 new BF Goodrich Traction T/A's this afternoon, it rides like it's on rails. Just enhances the experience for me. The wife ran over a 4" piece of metal this afternoon & since I had already decided to replace her worn tires next week, we just did it a week earlier. Glad I did.
    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 :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    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!

    Whoa! Those vehicles are double the prices of the cars you drive! Should be a hoot though!
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    new BF Goodrich Traction T/A's ... rides like it's on rails

    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.
  • supersonic45supersonic45 Member Posts: 8
    I agree that the B F Goodrich Traction T/A tires do excellent in handling qualities, however after having them on my Honda for a few months, I was not at all happy with the noise they produced. They really growled at all speeds and the rolling resistance was not good. I should have read the rating in Consumer Reports before buying them. At any rate, I returned to Costco and they replaced them with what originally came on the car, Michellin tires. What a difference. No more B F Goodrich tires for me. Maybe the B F's have an edge on handling, but the noise and harsh ride they produce are not worth it, for me.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    ... Maybe the B F's have an edge on handling, but the noise and harsh ride they produce are not worth it ...

    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.
  • supersonic45supersonic45 Member Posts: 8
    Yes, I tried different air pressure, still no help. I usually put a couple more pounds than whats called for, mainly for better gas mileage and rolling resistance. The Michlins that came on the car when new were MXV4. Great tires; I got 55,000 miles on them with no complaints. I put the same kind back on, and there really is a big difference. I think the Touring T/A would have been OK, but Costco only carries the Traction T/A. Not for me.
  • whiteandnerdywhiteandnerdy Member Posts: 6
    I just test drove a Honda Civic EX Coupe and a Mazda 3i Touring, both with manual transmissions, and found them to be pretty good cars. However, I think the Mazda has a couple clear advantages over the Honda:

    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.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    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.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Welcome! Nice post, thanks!
Sign In or Register to comment.