CD Article: 2010 Mazda3 Sport GT

[Jaeger]

One thing that surprised me was how small the rear seats are.  While this wouldn't be a deal breaker, I wonder if it would be harder to fit a car seat vs. my P5.

That surprised me, too, when I sat in it at the auto show.  One area that really could have used some improvement over the outgoing model.

I agree that with the new exterior design, 2010 Mazda3 is now more polarizing; some still like it, some don't. Again, looks are subjective. If an editor at C/D said the car is ugly it doesn't mean it is.  If you don't like it, fine; you can write about it as much as you want. There are others here that don't like it and nobody tried to convince them otherwise. 
There is no "authority" worth quoting when it comes to car design.
 

However, you used the “C/D argument" when you did not have a good argument to sustain your negative post about fuel economy.
 This is what revealed your intentions to bring to the discussion any negative points made about this car. Breaking news: there are many available, but in general they stop at the exterior design, which doesn't really matter as I mentioned before.

Talk about missing the point - I brought up the styling since you started whining about "oh no, let's not talk fuel economy again!" and suggested that was the only negative in respect of this vehicle.  And I do think the C/D reference was worth quoting - as it was a very cleverly-phrased expression of my own opinion of the interior and exterior styling of this vehicle.  You don't like that - too bad - nobody is forcing you to read or to endlessly reply to my posts.

You may carry on with your crusade to portray this vehicle as an unqualified success, but you won't find me among your converts.

Jaeger

[Shnak]

When a car's fuel efficiency decreases with a new generation, it raises questions about the importance a company puts on fuel economy and environment...

2009 Mazda3 2.3L, 5AT            22/28/24 (city/highway/combined)
2010 Mazda3 2.5L 5AT            22/29/n/a (city/highway/combined)

2009 Mazda3 2L, 4AT             22/30/25 (city/highway/combined)
2010 Mazda3 2L 5AT            24/33/ n/a (city/highway/combined)

Source: EPA, Edmunds     

Where is the decrease?

Point taken; I assumed that it had gotten worse simply by reading what everyone was saying in the other Mazda3 thread.

I'm still not sure what's the point in getting a car this small with this average-at-best fuel economy though...

[carcrazy]

One thing that surprised me was how small the rear seats are.  While this wouldn't be a deal breaker, I wonder if it would be harder to fit a car seat vs. my P5.

I just installed a Britax Frontier in my 2005 Mazda3 sedan yesterday. It fits fine and it was easy to install largely due to the car seat design (very good IMO). I can still fold the backrest (60/100 side) and there is room for the little legs behind the front passenger seat. I did not have to move the front passenger seat forward to make room in the back so the space there is the same as before.
The room is tight in the Mazda3 by comparison with my Outlander, but this is one of the reasons I have a small SUV as well.

[carcrazy]

When a car's fuel efficiency decreases with a new generation, it raises questions about the importance a company puts on fuel economy and environment...

2009 Mazda3 2.3L, 5AT            22/28/24 (city/highway/combined)
2010 Mazda3 2.5L 5AT            22/29/n/a (city/highway/combined)

2009 Mazda3 2L, 4AT             22/30/25 (city/highway/combined)
2010 Mazda3 2L 5AT            24/33/ n/a (city/highway/combined)

Source: EPA, Edmunds     

Where is the decrease?

Point taken; I assumed that it had gotten worse simply by reading what everyone was saying in the other Mazda3 thread.

I'm still not sure what's the point in getting a car this small with this average-at-best fuel economy though...

Not everyone just some that did not take the time to research before posting here.

Driving dynamics and performance, if that matters to one, is one of the reasons to opt for a Mazda3 with the larger engine.
By the numbers, Mazda3 was at the top of the class for its performance, while at par for fuel economy with the rest of the vehicles with similar size engines. What is wrong about this combination, it's beyond my understanding.

MotorTrend did instrument testing on the 2010 Mazda3 2.5 and it seems to be slightly better than the outgoing model they tested recently.  This may put the new Mazda3 right on top of the pack for performance without doubt. This is progress IMO.

[Rupert]

For engine size and weight most normally aspirated engines today are pretty close  on fuel economy with Toyota and Honda seemingly having a small edge. I liked the styling of the previous Protege too. I notice that adds for this car seem to show the vehicle from behind. I don't like the cycle style fender design if that is what it is called.

[carcrazy]

I agree that with the new exterior design, 2010 Mazda3 is now more polarizing; some still like it, some don't. Again, looks are subjective. If an editor at C/D said the car is ugly it doesn't mean it is.  If you don't like it, fine; you can write about it as much as you want. There are others here that don't like it and nobody tried to convince them otherwise. 
There is no "authority" worth quoting when it comes to car design.
 

However, you used the “C/D argument" when you did not have a good argument to sustain your negative post about fuel economy.
 This is what revealed your intentions to bring to the discussion any negative points made about this car. Breaking news: there are many available, but in general they stop at the exterior design, which doesn't really matter as I mentioned before.

Talk about missing the point - I brought up the styling since you started whining about "oh no, let's not talk fuel economy again!" and suggested that was the only negative in respect of this vehicle.  And I do think the C/D reference was worth quoting - as it was a very cleverly-phrased expression of my own opinion of the interior and exterior styling of this vehicle.  You don't like that - too bad - nobody is forcing you to read or to endlessly reply to my posts.

You may carry on with your crusade to portray this vehicle as an unqualified success, but you won't find me among your converts.

Jaeger

Just to get things straight, you can talk about styling all the way; I never commented on any poster's opinion about styling. You did not presented the quote from C/D as a reflection of your own thoughts; please correct me if I'm wrong, but you said: "... what a Car and Driver editor said about the exterior design ..."
I'm not "whining" about anything and I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything. Everyone is entitled to its opinion and I respect that. I responded to your posts just as you responded to mine.
I apologize using the expression "who gives a s*it" in one of my posts, as it doesn't characterizes me.

I only responded to your post about fuel economy with the actual numbers from EPA to show that the Mazda3 is no more of a "gas guzzler" than any other car in this class with the same size engine; simple as that.

"Sir Osis of Liver" responded to another statement you made in your post : "...And that big sporty 2.5 with the lousy mileage gets you a vehicle which turned out to be slower than the old one. That's progress?".

MotorTrend did instrument testing that showed actually a 0.5 sec improvement in the 0-60 mph acceleration, which is fairly significant in this test. All other performance numbers, as measured by MotorTrend, are similar or better. C/D may post different results, but why give precedence to one versus another? The conclusion I draw from the numbers is that this car takes 7.6-7.7 sec to 60 mph which place it on or near the top of its class.


Mazda3 is not a perfect car by any means (there is no such car IMO), but by comparison, and exterior design controversy aside (I already stated that I’m not thrilled about the exterior design), it’s still one of the best cars you can buy in this class. This is just my opinion about the car.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Photoshop!

[initial_D]

Good thing the M3 has a decent size trunk/hatch, otherwise it will be murder-ed over that category as well.

[mmret]

Photoshop!

That looks alright.

[rrocket]

In my newly-arrived Car and Driver, they squeezed 26 US MPG out of it....(9L/100km)

[Angry Chicken]

I think all the talk about fuel economy being poor in these cars is over-blown and symptomatic of a slow news day.  As I pointed out in the thread on the 2010 Mazda3 review, I have obtained an average of 9.15 l/100 km in mixed driving in over 45000 km of ownership.  Country driving hovers around the high 6's l/100 km and highway at around 7 at a constant 120 km/h or therabouts. These are respectable numbers and I'm sure that driven with a lighter foot than I possess these numbers would be better.  I take meticulous mileage records so I feel on solid ground here.  I would think that with the new 6 spd MT the new ones can be at least as good.  I also discovered that it took over 5000 km from when the car was brand new before I observed really good fuel economy.  I'm unsure as to why this would be the case, though I suspect that tight manufacturing tolerances and loosening up during a proper break-in period might be contibuting reasons.

/Eric

[ovr50]

I think all the talk about fuel economy being poor in these cars is over-blown and symptomatic of a slow news day.  As I pointed out in the thread on the 2010 Mazda3 review, I have obtained an average of 9.15 l/100 km in mixed driving in over 45000 km of ownership.  Country driving hovers around the high 6's l/100 km and highway at around 7 at a constant 120 km/h or therabouts. These are respectable numbers and I'm sure that driven with a lighter foot than I possess these numbers would be better.  I take meticulous mileage records so I feel on solid ground here.  I would think that with the new 6 spd MT the new ones can be at least as good.  I also discovered that it took over 5000 km from when the car was brand new before I observed really good fuel economy.  I'm unsure as to why this would be the case, though I suspect that tight manufacturing tolerances and loosening up during a proper break-in period might be contibuting reasons.

/Eric

+1

[jaman]

One thing that surprised me was how small the rear seats are.  While this wouldn't be a deal breaker, I wonder if it would be harder to fit a car seat vs. my P5.

I just installed a Britax Frontier in my 2005 Mazda3 sedan yesterday. It fits fine and it was easy to install largely due to the car seat design (very good IMO). I can still fold the backrest (60/100 side) and there is room for the little legs behind the front passenger seat. I did not have to move the front passenger seat forward to make room in the back so the space there is the same as before.
The room is tight in the Mazda3 by comparison with my Outlander, but this is one of the reasons I have a small SUV as well.

kind of off topic...but, was this rear-facing? In my P5, the Britax Marathon requires the passenger seat to be moved all the way forward when installing in the rear-facing position. Forward-facing...no problem.

[carcrazy]

One thing that surprised me was how small the rear seats are.  While this wouldn't be a deal breaker, I wonder if it would be harder to fit a car seat vs. my P5.

I just installed a Britax Frontier in my 2005 Mazda3 sedan yesterday. It fits fine and it was easy to install largely due to the car seat design (very good IMO). I can still fold the backrest (60/100 side) and there is room for the little legs behind the front passenger seat. I did not have to move the front passenger seat forward to make room in the back so the space there is the same as before.
The room is tight in the Mazda3 by comparison with my Outlander, but this is one of the reasons I have a small SUV as well.

kind of off topic...but, was this rear-facing? In my P5, the Britax Marathon requires the passenger seat to be moved all the way forward when installing in the rear-facing position. Forward-facing...no problem.

Forward facing. Rear facing would require to move the front seat all the way forward.