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

2012 Mazda3

1234689

Comments

  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "DCT's have a few draw backs, hence why Mazda opted not to use one. They cost more to build, weigh more and provide less low end efficiency while offering a less than smooth shift at lower speeds as well, something Ford is struggling with as we speak.

    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.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    There's still no auto climate control with the SkyActiv. Subaru's new Impreza handles real nice too, offers auto climate, USB, and AWD...engine and tranny aren't as nice as the SkyActiv though, and I'm honestly not that sure I'd use AWD much, though I'm sure it'd be handy.

    Might be worth it to see what they do with both models for 2013...
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Jumping to 2013 already? lol

    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    edited December 2011
    shipo-

    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!)
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Well, right now I'm down to the Mazda3 and the Subaru Impreza, but both have issues that might be resolved next model year. So it's very tempting to at least wait to hear about rumored 2013 changes for each one. The Subie needs more power, power seats, more metallic paint, and a better stereo system. The Mazda needs auto climate control, heated seats, a better stereo, and a less ugly mug. They BOTH need better availability of factory satellite radio.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Nope, not yet. My friendly neighborhood Mazda sales person (she's a she) told me that every one of the 6-Speed manual SkyActiv models they have inbound have long since been sold, and they don't let the rest of us "shoppers" drive cars already earmarked for paying customers. Can't say as I blame them.

    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.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    March is when our brand catches fire. We will have a great inventory of Mazda3's, 85% SKYACTIV, and we will go back to selling high volume of those. The CX-5 should be a hit, but we will see. Our best selling months are March-August.

    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!
  • ajfinoakajfinoak Member Posts: 58
    I have test driven 2 different Skyactiv 3 hatchbacks with the auto and really want to like it. While it seems to upshift smoothly, it is geared to require you to really push the pedal down at least halfway to get some power and a downshift on hills (in San Fran) or on the freeway at over 60. Likely this was done to keep MPG up. However, one ends up with a jolt as revs jump up and the 4 cylinder starts to scream. Anyone else notice this? Full time with a manual not an option due to back problems.
  • qoolmamaqoolmama Member Posts: 1
    I just bought the 2012 Mazda3i. I love the car, style and yes - the smiley face. It makes me happy to see it. I did get really scared 4 days after the purchase when i cranked the car with outside temp being about 38 - 39 degrees. The engine vibrated and made this awful noise that made my daughter and myself really worried . As the engine warmed it did seem to lessen. Then as the day warmed the start up noise was non existent. I haven't been able to get it to duplicate the severity of that first episode, but it has done it on a more minor scale. Thanks for letting people like me know the reason.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    goolmama-

    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!
  • woochiferwoochifer Member Posts: 32
    edited January 2012
    I took delivery on the Mazda3i Touring this week after paring my choices down to the 3, Ford Focus, and VW Golf TDI.

    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.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Nice report! Look forward to hearing what kind of MPG you are getting. Please let us know how you like it after you get some miles under your belt.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I know we don't have a CX-5 thread yet, however since the CX-5 has Mazda's SKYACTIV technology, it was just announced that the CX-5 will get up to 35mpg highway. Here is the breakdown...

    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.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Impressive MPGs but with about 30hp less than the others it should do better. I've read several reviews that mentioned that it handled great but is a little doggy. I realize there is a trade off...pep for mpg but I just hope that it's not too much.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    That's both unusual and surprising that the new Skyactiv automatic gets so much less highway than the 6 speed manual. I expected them to be closer.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    I of course think the better mileage of the manual version was totally predictable. :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    edited January 2012
    Impressive MPGs but with about 30hp less than the others it should do better
    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.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Except that the automatic is better on the Mazda3. by 1 MPG. So I'm wondering exactly what's going on.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    The EPA ratings say the Automatic is better, but anecdotal reports from the driving public say otherwise.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited January 2012
    I'm glad you correctly used "ancedotal" which means not scientifically verfied and may or may not be true. Also, a few members of the driving pubic would be more accurate versus "the driving public".

    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.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "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.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    edited January 2012
    I'm not talking about unverifiable anectdotal reports. I'm talking about a 100% reproducible test under identical conditions applied to each powertrain. Now, given the weight and aerodynamic differences I don't expect the CX-5 manual to hit 38 MPG like the Mazda3 manual (let's be fair and use the hatch), and I don't expect the CX-5 automatic to hit Mazda3's 39 MPG. But when the auto gets 39 in the Mazda3 and 32 in the CX-5, but the manual gets 38 in the Mazda3 and 35 in the CX-5, that means there are other significantly different factors and I want to know what they are. This is not a driving style difference, this has to be some drastically different tuning in both the engine and transmission, and possibly different shift points and gear ratios in the manual. Otherwise this should be a very linear and predictable change, and the CX-5 manual should be getting between 30 and 32 MPG highway in the EPA test.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Granted the quantity of anecdotal reports are still pretty low, but at some point anecdotal reports start gathering weight and encroach upon the realm of empirical data. If any one anecdotal report seems unreasonable or too over the top, it is easy to dismiss; however, if hundreds or even thousands of such reports are similar in nature then one can dismiss them only at their peril.

    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.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    Consumer Reports does very good fuel economy tests and they clearly show that manual have an advantage in fuel economy and acceleration. Even the VW DSG is less efficient and slower than the manual. This despite better or equel EPA numbers for the automatics.

    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.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Nobody said that many people can't get better MPG with a manual tran...at least I didn't. I just said that the average driver will probably get similar results with both transmissions. The posters in here, being mostly people that have a great interest in cars, are most likely better able to shift at the most opportune times for good MPG. If you really look at the criteria the EPA uses it is not rocket science or a highly unusual convoluted test cycle. I'm certainly not a defender of the EPA but I have had no trouble beating the EPA hwy numbers either before or after the 2008 revision with an automatic. And I've read many "ancedotal reports from the driving public" that they do the same. I've also read many reports that many manual drivers beat the EPA numbers by even more.

    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.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Long story short, again you're getting toward anecdotal stuff which has nothing to do with the difference in the repeatable EPA test that we're discussing. Long story short, we have an anomaly here that is not explained, and either the EPA test is not consistent (highly unlikely) or something changed in that manual transmission and engine between the Mazda3 and Mazda CX-5 (where the tranny is supposedly the same SkyActiv manual). And for such a significant change in recorded EPA highway mileage results, that something has to be significant.

    And finally, long story short, I predict you'll change the subject to your predictions about how wonderful manual transmissions are. Again. :shades:
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    If you compare the 2.5 drivetrains in the Mazda3 and the Mazda6 they are the same(I'm pretty sure anyway). But the Mazda6, a bigger heavier car, gets better mpg. I assume, even though it's the same tranny, that the gearing is slightly different. The salesman of course when I pointed it out, one....didn't even know they were different and the 6 got better mpg, and two....didn't have a clue as to why. Could this be a similar reason for the difference you're talking about?
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Nope, I'm sticking with my prediction; the manual will deliver better mileage than the automatic in real world driving for both the Mazda3 and the CX-5. As one of our fellow TownHall members is fond of saying, "Often wrong, never uncertain." ;)

    Oh, and it simply goes without saying that the manual is more fun and more engaging to drive. :shades:
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    And it is now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can predict the future.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    That would have to be some pretty drastic gearing change, unless they're changing the shift points somewhat drastically as well. We know they "tuned" the engine between the 3 and the CX-5. I wonder if they're using different engine tuning between the auto and manual as well.

    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.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Oh, and it simply goes without saying that the manual is more fun and more engaging to drive

    It sure would be nice if it did go without saying.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2008/10/save-gas-and-money- -with-a-stick-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm

    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.
  • woochiferwoochifer Member Posts: 32
    All in all, not a bad start. 10.6 gallons on the first fill up, and 351 miles driven with a lot of city driving and accelerating/decelerating to help break in the drivetrain.
  • chloebechloebe Member Posts: 1
    I did read a review of the new Mazda where it is mentioned that the SkyActiv engine was rushed to production. I just had my 2005 Mazda3 totaled and have been looking into options for my next car, but am worried about the new Mazdas. The 2011s have terrible gas mileage compared with mine, and the 2012 sounds like it comes equipped with a "beta" engine. Not something I'd want to drop near $20K on.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I did read a review of the new Mazda where it is mentioned that the SkyActiv engine was rushed to production.

    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.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Any word on modifications for 2013 yet? Will we be able to get SkyActiv with s-level equipment, such as automatic climate control?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    I take it this forum is dead because everyone's out actually driving their Mazda3s? :shades:
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    It's called data gathering! :P
  • 34pete34pete Member Posts: 4
    My girl and I are thinking about cars as we are going to leave NYC and will need a ride. I am a very tall person though 6'5" and with long legs.

    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.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Speaking of data gathering... I was doing a lot of that at my local auto show today, always a highlight of the year for me. Mazda had a Mazda3i Touring sedan and a hatch there. I prefer the hatch. They had one in deep blue with the tan interior, which was great because I favor the tan interior. Comparing it in close proximity to the competition let me confirm that it's at the top of my shopping list for next year. It has several advantages over competitors like the Focus SE, such as a flat-folding rear seat (or nearly flat), very adequate if not expansive rear leg room, and a nicely-styled interior. The slick short-throw 6MT is a big plus also.

    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.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Based just on the pics of the Elantra GT and the MPG reports from the regular Elantra I'd cross it off the list. Yeah something like BlueLink would be nice but they had to hamstring their engine to get a theoretical 40 MPG (torque is pretty low), which a lot of people have trouble meeting on the Hyundais. Also, is it just me or do their wheels look way too small on all of their cars?

    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...
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I kinda like the looks of the Elantra GT. Also I've had no problems exceeding the EPA FE ratings on the 2011+ Elantra when I've driven it as a rental, so I don't see a problem there. I'm not buying the car for speed. If so I'd go with the Mazdaspeed3. :)

    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.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    The big AWD expense I keep thinking about (besides the 3 MPG highway loss) is the tires. No more replacing 2 at a time for the most part.

    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.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    What do you want... 20" wheels? :confuse: :surprise:

    image

    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!
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Agree the wheels/tires look small on the ELantra but you nailed it with the expanse of body panel above especially the rear wheel well. Makes the tires look tiny but they are not. They fill the wheelwell fine. The front doesn't look bad, it's the rear view that really stands out. I noticed this the other day too when I was driving next to one on the expressway.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    You drove next to an Elantra GT? They aren't even for sale until summer! :surprise:
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    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 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.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited March 2012
    OK, but the GT, which we were comparing here to the Mazda3 hatch, is a different exterior design than the Elantra sedan and has different wheels also.

    image
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    edited March 2012
    Different exterior design, different wheels...but the same problem.

    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:
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I actually like the wheel design on the Elantra GT much better than the lame wheels on the 3i Touring. :P But they'll do.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.