Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
What Mazda did with the torque converter transmission was increase the amount of clutch plates in the transmission, and had the torque converter lock up 80% of the time, as opposed to 50% of most torque converter transmissions. This allows for less energy loss from clutch slippage, more direct shift feel (similar to a DCT), and increased FE at low speeds. This transmission weighs less, costs less and is more efficient than a DCT, according to Mazda."
I'm inclined to agree with the above assessment; I finally got a chance to drive a new SkyActiv Mazda3 with an automatic on Tuesday. While I steadfastly maintain there has yet to be an automatic created (or even dreamt of) which will be better for my needs, wants, and desires, than a good manual, I definitely prefer the new SkyActiv automatic in the Mazda3 over the DSG in the GTI for any type of driving other than racing on a road-course.
Might be worth it to see what they do with both models for 2013...
I think we will see the MZR 2.0L dropped from the lineup. I believe it was only offered because Mazda could not build enough SKYACTIV's at launch.
I have no idea if Mazda will add auto climate control or extra models with the 6-speed mtx, but one can only hope. I do believe that 2013 will be the last year of this body style.
Have you had an opportunity to drive a 6-speed manual in the SKYACTIV Mazda3? I wonder what your thoughts were if you have (other than not available in a GT trim :shades: )
The atx is pretty good, probably one of the best out there right now. But, for manual aficionados, it won't suffice (like you!)
She thinks her dealership's supply/demand curve for manual models may intersect sometime in March; afterwhich I'll be able to schedule a test-drive.
For my part I'm still holding out hope that 2013 sees a Mazda3 with the SkyActiv-D engine and SkyActiv-MT transmission all dressed up in what might otherwise be thought of as the current Mazda3 s GT trim level. Assuming I can get the above car with Sunroof, Bose audio, Climate Control, and Automagic wipers, I'll be good to go. If not I'll probably find my way back into the BMW fold and get a 6-Speed manual version of the new F30 320d or 328i.
Very interesting.
Thank the gods for the Mazda3; along with the Miata it seems to be holding up the Mazda brand. Is the latest Mazda6 selling enough for you? My sense from the initial reviews is that Mazda right-sized it (i.e. made it larger to compete with the likes of the Accord and Camry) but that the formula is not quite complete (e.g. fuel economy is not great). The CX5 is going to be facing very still competition with the latest CRV and some Korean models.
All the best for the remainder of 2011 and more importantly for 2012!
The noise is by design which is a result of adjusted ignition timing to help warm the engine up quicker. Nothing to be concerned about, but I guess you already figured that out!
Mazda3: All of them were excellent choices with their own respective advantages and disadvantages. What wound up deciding things for me was the Skyactiv drivetrain. Very linear power delivery on the engine with just enough passing power in reserve. It's much more refined than the other MZR engines I've driven, yet it's rated for up to 40 MPG.
But, the real revelation for me was the auto transmission -- probably the best one I've ever driven. Smooth upshifts, and in the manual mode, very responsive with the gear changes with good rev matching on the downshifts. Unlike other ATs I've driven over the years, this one felt very connected. Except during low speed crawls and auto downshifts during hard decelerations, I barely notice the AT working.
The interior was a tradeoff, with some good and some bad. And the handling was superlative for its class as always. Overall, I thought the 3 was the best balance between performance, features, and value.
Ford Focus: The Focus was equal to the Mazda3 as far as the handling goes. And the interior design was a step up on the 3. Where the Focus fell short by comparison was with the drivetrain. The engine felt rougher and seemed to run out of steam sooner. The MT was okay with a longer throw than I'm used to, while AT felt direct and responsive in normal driving but lurching at low speeds. But, for anyone who wants a wider range of options and more logical package combinations, the Focus is a great choice.
VW Golf TDI: Since one of my primary criteria was fuel mileage, the regular gas Golf was not one of my choices. The TDI has always intrigued me and the test drive was my first drive with a diesel in about 20 years. All in all, I was very impressed with how the TDI drove. The torque is abundant and I never felt short on power no matter how far I revved it. The handling felt slightly tighter than the 3 and Focus, though not quite as well dampened a ride. Among my choices, the Golf probably had the most luxurious interior.
In order to move up to the sunroof, I needed to also add the nav system (which I did not want). And in the end, it was the price that eliminated the Golf TDI from consideration. After hashing out the numbers with the dealer, the negotiated price on the Golf TDI came out to nearly $6k more than both the 3 and the Focus, with a monthly payment about $100 higher. Yes, it had more options than either of the others, but as configured with the equipment that I did want it went just outside of our budget.
2WD / 6-speed manual: 26 city / 35 highway / 29 combined
2WD / automatic: 26 city / 32 highway / 29 combined
AWD / automatic: 25 city / 31 highway / 28 combined
Pretty damn impressive. It's much better than the new CR-V (23/31/26 for 2WD and 22 / 30 / 25 for AWD), Hyundai Tuscon, Kia Sportage, Toyota RAV4, and Chevy Equinox. The only one left to see is the new Escape.
I have read similar reviews, howerver if you read reviews on the top competitors, you will notice even though they have more power, they are no faster and the term "sluggish" is also applied to them as well. The Mazda CX-5 is a sliver quicker than a CR-V, even though it is giving up 25hp.
I think with modern technology the average driver, either stick or auto, will get very close results. The few stick drivers that are really using very good shifting techniques might see better MPG but those are not your average driver. So it's not that the EPA ratings are wrong, it's just that they are made for average drivers. That's also why they have wide ranges. People that drive very conservatively can beat the averages and the speedsters can't come close.
Depends upon the car. Both of my I6 BMWs (both manual transmissions) would easily top their EPA highway numbers by nearly a third; all I had to do was drive at speeds a few mph either side of 75. If I was to slow down to whatever the stupid speed the EPA uses for testing (isn't it somewhere in the fifties?), my mileage would drop considerably.
The reason I keep working this angle is because the SkyActiv Mazdas aren't the only vehicles where the official EPA results show similar or even better fuel economy numbers for Automatic models, but yet the vast majority of anecdotal field reports show quite the reverse (the current Mazda5 is a prime example of this).
The cause? Hard to tell, but some have suggested the EPA testing of Manual transmission models is skewed because said test is conducted as if the person operating the transmission is an idiot.
So, long story short, I predict that when the anecdotal field reports of the SkyActiv Mazda3 number in the thousands, the Manual transmission versions will show consistently better fuel economy than the Automatic models. I know you don't want to believe it, and fortunately you won't have to for some time yet; sooner or later the sheer quantity of anecdotal data will become compelling enough to make it difficult to argue against.
Yes the EPA test requires a very precise driving pattern and automatics can be programmed to do well on the test. Manuals are forced to over rev and stay in too high a gear.
What does all this prove? Just what I said. That a good driver can beat the EPA numbers with either transmission and the very good stick driver can probably beat it by a little more. BUT, these are not the average driver which the EPA tends to try and duplicate to give decent estimates. So this endless circle discussion of which is better is just childish and a waste of time. Drive what you like but don't denigrate others for the decision that fits their lifestyle.
And finally, long story short, I predict you'll change the subject to your predictions about how wonderful manual transmissions are. Again. :shades:
Oh, and it simply goes without saying that the manual is more fun and more engaging to drive. :shades:
I'd like to know a list of what changed between the auto and manual on the CX-5. Doubt we'll get it, but I'd like to know.
It sure would be nice if it did go without saying.
The above is actual testing of automatic and manual - there is no comparison. Manual wins by a mile.
Wish Mazda offered the manual in all their trims.
Link please? Not one article I have read makes such mention. Did you happen to read this in a Honda thread?
2012 sounds like it comes equipped with a "beta" engine. Not something I'd want to drop near $20K on
Mazda has been developing this technology for years. They announced it over 3 years ago. The "beta" engines were being tested on roads about a year and a half ago.
I am wondering if any combination of bigger engine and no moonroof exists besides the Mazda3 speed. I rented a mazda 3 a while back and liked it well enough for an economy car.
Also how is that blind spot monitoring thing? That only comes with the top of the line? I don't care about many of the other options (maybe just an aux jack and AC good enough for me) but that seems kinda cool.
The last car I had a 96 Honda Civic had a moon roof and it forever ticked me off.. How much can the seat lower? I also hate ducking down to see stop lights.
Unless the new Elantra GT (a no-show at the auto show) can unseat the Mazda3i from its perch atop my list, and assuming I am not smitten when I drive the new Dart (which is a fantastic-looking car), looks like it will come down to the Mazda3i Touring, with the Golf (used), Impreza, and Prius (used) as alternatives if I can't get a good enough deal on the Mazda3.
How would you say the rear legroom compares to the Impreza? I found the Impreza to be incredibly spacious in the back, and I'm a 6-footer. I also found the Focus back seat to be comparable to a Mustang back seat. :shades: At this time I'm missing my old Mazda so much I'm only barely considering an Impreza, but this is the Northeast and all, and AWD has a certain appeal. Maybe a WRX announcement...
The Impreza has more knee room than the Mazda3 but the toe space in the Impreza is a little tighter, so it's not a big difference for me. The Focus definitely is tighter in back than the Mazda3 or Impreza--barely sufficient leg space, and that's only because the Focus' rear seat is pretty high.
Given I live in a city (Twin Cities) where snow removal is a science, and all new cars now have ABS/traction/ESC, I think I can live w/o AWD. I have for all these years.
I think the Elantra GT looks OK but the wheels look too small. They look too small on the Elantra also. They're not, I know, but they LOOK it, probably because there's too much body panel above the wheel wells.
I'm not a fan of low-profile tires (with big wheels) myself... I've found ride quality suffers. On the frost-heaved, pot-holed roads I drive on every day, I like a little rubber between me and the road. The 16" wheels on the Mazda3i Touring (and standard 16" wheels on the Elantra GT) are just fine for me. Also, if you are concerned about the price of tires, you should be concerned about the higher cost of replacing low-profile tires, and potentially those big rims!
I was replying and agreeing to this part of his/her post which I thought would be obvious but apparently not. I like the Elantra sedan's looks but do think the side in the back looks a little strange.
20 inch wheels would help if they also expanded the wheel wells and didn't change anything else on the car. But since we're Mazda fans we want it to look uglier than the Mazda3 anyway. :shades:
20" wheels?! No thanks. I don't need the dental bills.
The Elantra GT will have to be a pretty great car to top the 3i Touring on my shopping list. And Elantras aren't cheap anymore. My fully loaded 2004 GT with leather, moonroof, every available option was only $13.2k + TTL. I don't expect the GT equipped the way I'd want it to cost much less than the 3i Touring.