Topic: CD Article: 2010 Mazda3 Sport GT

[Autos_Editor]

         
Test Drive:


Equipped with a bigger 2.5-litre four-cylinder engine, new six-speed manual transmission, and a re-tuned suspension, the new Mazda3 Sport GT "is even more fun to drive than the previous model," says Editor-in-chief, Greg Wilson.  But it's not a fuel miser.
 More: View the photos | All the Test Drives

[Jaeger]

22mpg combined?  From a normally aspirated 4???  Wow - can't wait to see the V8 level consumption from the Mazdspeed 3.  What's the combined figure for the Mazda 6 V6?

Jaeger

[ovr50]

Let's hope this thread doesn't turn into another carping session about fuel economy like the thread on the 2010 Mazda 3 did.

I guess ppl need something to complain about with this car, since it's really quite good in all other areas.

 

[1TSX]

Basically...if you want a relatively SMALL car, that is fun to drive, practical, comfortable, reliable AND reasonably priced, this is it. The cost of all this? sacrifice a bit of fuel economy. There is no perfect car out there.

Want something better on gas? Corolla, and Civic tend to be class leaders for fuel economy. But guess what? They aren't as practical or fun to drive as the 3, IMO.

[carcrazy]

People trolling these threads refuse to acknowledge that Mazda3' fuel economy is AT PAR with the rest of the cars in this class, offering 2.4L-2.5L I4 engines. They also refuse to understand that there are lots of people out there that don't give a damn about 1-2L/100km and they care about driving experience, features, general quality of the car, etc. which none of the "fuel efficient" econoboxes can offer.

   

[Leviathan]

People trolling these threads refuse to acknowledge that Mazda3' fuel economy is AT PAR with the rest of the cars in this class, offering 2.4L-2.5L I4 engines. They also refuse to understand that there are lots of people out there that don't give a damn about 1-2L/100km and they care about driving experience, features, general quality of the car, etc. which none of the "fuel efficient" econoboxes can offer.

Yep. And there is always the 2.0L models if the economy of the 2.5L is soooo offensive.

[ovr50]

People trolling these threads refuse to acknowledge that Mazda3' fuel economy is AT PAR with the rest of the cars in this class, offering 2.4L-2.5L I4 engines. They also refuse to understand that there are lots of people out there that don't give a damn about 1-2L/100km and they care about driving experience, features, general quality of the car, etc. which none of the "fuel efficient" econoboxes can offer.

   

Exactly. carcrazy. +1

[Snowman]

People trolling these threads refuse to acknowledge that Mazda3' fuel economy is AT PAR with the rest of the cars in this class, offering 2.4L-2.5L I4 engines. They also refuse to understand that there are lots of people out there that don't give a damn about 1-2L/100km and they care about driving experience, features, general quality of the car, etc. which none of the "fuel efficient" econoboxes can offer.

   

 

[Jaeger]

Let's hope this thread doesn't turn into another carping session about fuel economy like the thread on the 2010 Mazda 3 did.

I guess ppl need something to complain about with this car, since it's really quite good in all other areas.

 

Okay, would you rather we "carp" about what a Car and Driver editor said about the exterior design: "Outside, the smiling carp face is as off-putting as facing rotten soybeans at breakfast."  Or the interior: "The faux futurism that pervades the interior would make Sulu and Uhura feel right at home behind the wheel." 

Hey it's a pretty darn good car - though not a real net improvement on the outgoing model, IMHO.  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? And the back seat still offers precious little leg room.  Hey at least it's not any worse.  So you'll forgive me if I don't buy the "it's perfect but for the gas mileage" fanboy schtick.

Jaeger

[soj]

Okay, would you rather we "carp" about what a Car and Driver editor said about the exterior design: "Outside, the smiling carp face is as off-putting as facing rotten soybeans at breakfast."  Or the interior: "The faux futurism that pervades the interior would make Sulu and Uhura feel right at home behind the wheel." 

Hey it's a pretty darn good car - though not a real net improvement on the outgoing model, IMHO.  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? And the back seat still offers precious little leg room.  Hey at least it's not any worse.  So you'll forgive me if I don't buy the "it's perfect but for the gas mileage" fanboy schtick.

Jaeger

I was wondering when someone was going to say something about the styling.  Way over the top as far as I'm concerned.  This design is too busy visually with appeal to a boy racer demographic and few others.  It's like it has branded on the back hatch, ticket here please, I go fast.  And as far as fuel economy is concerned, it's just counter current, you expect greater efficiency for the same output or a serious performance upgrade and it offers neither.       

[rrocket]

I've been complaining about the bad styling since I saw the car in person. 

Best looking compact car IMO......to one of the ugliest..

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Let's hope this thread doesn't turn into another carping session about fuel economy like the thread on the 2010 Mazda 3 did.

I guess ppl need something to complain about with this car, since it's really quite good in all other areas.

 

Okay, would you rather we "carp" about what a Car and Driver editor said about the exterior design: "Outside, the smiling carp face is as off-putting as facing rotten soybeans at breakfast."  Or the interior: "The faux futurism that pervades the interior would make Sulu and Uhura feel right at home behind the wheel." 

Hey it's a pretty darn good car - though not a real net improvement on the outgoing model, IMHO.  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? And the back seat still offers precious little leg room.  Hey at least it's not any worse.  So you'll forgive me if I don't buy the "it's perfect but for the gas mileage" fanboy schtick.

Jaeger

Motor Trend seem to have measured a performance gain.

That newfound power helps to cut nearly half a second off of the 0-to-60 time of the outgoing Mazda3 with the same trim package, at 7.6 sec (versus 8.3). The trend continues with the 3 accelerating through the quarter mile at 15.8 sec @ 87.8 mph, more than 1 sec quicker and 2 mph faster than the previous-gen car. The new 2010 Mazda3 now accelerates faster than the 2009 Corolla XRS, which was the quickest vehicle in four-door compact car comparison mentioned above.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0812_2010_mazda_3_grand_touring_quick_test/index.html

The interior is nowhere near as off putting as the "Tokyo by night" going on in the Civic.

The exterior looks Bangleized.

[kenm]

I finally went and looked at them to see what all the fuss was about and they are hideous! I might be able to gaze at a black one for a couple of seconds if I had a few beers in me.

KenM

[Careener]

I finally went and looked at them to see what all the fuss was about and they are hideous! I might be able to gaze at a black one for a couple of seconds if I had a few beers in me.

KenM

Heard at a roadside stop near you.
"Well you see officer, I find this car so ugly that I need to throw back a few before I get behind the wheel"

[carcrazy]

Let's hope this thread doesn't turn into another carping session about fuel economy like the thread on the 2010 Mazda 3 did.

I guess ppl need something to complain about with this car, since it's really quite good in all other areas.

 

Okay, would you rather we "carp" about what a Car and Driver editor said about the exterior design: "Outside, the smiling carp face is as off-putting as facing rotten soybeans at breakfast."  Or the interior: "The faux futurism that pervades the interior would make Sulu and Uhura feel right at home behind the wheel." 

Jaeger

Are you, or any sane person, buying a car based on what car magazines tell you? 

Looks are totally subjective. Who give a s*it about what anyone, other than yourself, think about any car design? I for one, loved the old generation and I still do today.
I'm not thrilled about the new Mazda3 exterior design, but I can see it growing on me, especially if only today's alternatives would be around. However, I like the interior although I cannot say I absolutely love it and the dash materials are better than in the old one.

[Jaeger]

Let's hope this thread doesn't turn into another carping session about fuel economy like the thread on the 2010 Mazda 3 did.

I guess ppl need something to complain about with this car, since it's really quite good in all other areas.

 

Okay, would you rather we "carp" about what a Car and Driver editor said about the exterior design: "Outside, the smiling carp face is as off-putting as facing rotten soybeans at breakfast."  Or the interior: "The faux futurism that pervades the interior would make Sulu and Uhura feel right at home behind the wheel." 

Jaeger

Are you, or any sane person, buying a car based on what car magazines tell you? 

Looks are totally subjective. Who give a s*it about what anyone, other than yourself, think about any car design? I for one, loved the old generation and I still do today.
I'm not thrilled about the new Mazda3 exterior design, but I can see it growing on me, especially if only today's alternatives would be around. However, I like the interior although I cannot say I absolutely love it and the dash materials are better than in the old one.

I think sane people consider what car mags have to say, but buy based on their own perceptions and their personal needs.  Does that make comments from car mags irrelevant in a discussion of a new model?  I don't think so.  Heck, this thread is in response to an article on the same car.  What was your point again?

Looks are subjective!  In other breaking news, the Pope is Catholic!  Again, when a new model is intriduced, its styling is always going to be the subject of commentary - particularly when the outgoing model was a standout success in that department.  Tell me, when people were raving about how good the old 3 looked, were you huffing about the subjectivity of their perceptions and asking "Who gives a s*it"? 

Jaeger

[carcrazy]

Let's hope this thread doesn't turn into another carping session about fuel economy like the thread on the 2010 Mazda 3 did.

I guess ppl need something to complain about with this car, since it's really quite good in all other areas.

 

Okay, would you rather we "carp" about what a Car and Driver editor said about the exterior design: "Outside, the smiling carp face is as off-putting as facing rotten soybeans at breakfast."  Or the interior: "The faux futurism that pervades the interior would make Sulu and Uhura feel right at home behind the wheel." 

Jaeger

Are you, or any sane person, buying a car based on what car magazines tell you? 

Looks are totally subjective. Who give a s*it about what anyone, other than yourself, think about any car design? I for one, loved the old generation and I still do today.
I'm not thrilled about the new Mazda3 exterior design, but I can see it growing on me, especially if only today's alternatives would be around. However, I like the interior although I cannot say I absolutely love it and the dash materials are better than in the old one.

I think sane people consider what car mags have to say, but buy based on their own perceptions and their personal needs.  Does that make comments from car mags irrelevant in a discussion of a new model?  I don't think so.  Heck, this thread is in response to an article on the same car.  What was your point again?

Looks are subjective!  In other breaking news, the Pope is Catholic!  Again, when a new model is intriduced, its styling is always going to be the subject of commentary - particularly when the outgoing model was a standout success in that department.  Tell me, when people were raving about how good the old 3 looked, were you huffing about the subjectivity of their perceptions and asking "Who gives a s*it"? 

Jaeger

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.

[Shnak]

And as far as fuel economy is concerned, it's just counter current, you expect greater efficiency for the same output or a serious performance upgrade and it offers neither.       

Well put. That's exactly my sentiment also. Cars are supposed to become more and more fuel efficient. 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...

[tortoise]

"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..."

Considering the CAFE standards haven't changed in 2 decades and that todays cars are less fuel efficient than those in the early '80's it isn't even a question.

I really like the new 3.  I've warmed up to the exterior styling.  It isn't great but not hideous.  Then again  I wasn't really in love with the original 3's styling (at least compared to the Protege). 

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.

[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?