Topic: Test Drive: 2014 Mazda3 GT Sedan

[dirtyjeffer]

Being Top 5 in a market that isn't a Top 10 world market won't sustain Mazda as a company.  This has been discussed before.

Regular Joe car buyers outnumber "drivers" by a huge margin.

i've mentioned something similar in the car comparo threads before...i think reviewers often weight the driving dynamics portions too high...giving praise for value, ergonomics, cargo capacity and features, but then criticizing driving dynamics, which seems to drop some cars in the final results...the truth is (as i have said), the buying public doesn't care about carving apexes on highway on-ramps...they want a car with the features they want, that is nice to drive (which all new cars are) with a decent warranty and at a price they can afford (total or payment)...the sales numbers also prove this...Corollas and Civics aren't top picks for driving dynamics, but Toyota and Honda sell acres of them every month...and so they should, they are great cars.

[Minou]

So you're averaging 5.0 L/100 km?

Yea I drove from Calgary to Vancouver on a tank of gas. The low fuel light came on at 921 km. I filled 49.3L at the 1004 km mark. This is in my 2012 Mazda 3 Skyactiv with the 6 speed manual

Awesome.  Best I got with the 6 is +/- 930 km on a tank and putting in close to 55 liters for 5.88 L/100 km on my way down to Florida last fall with only 1000 km on the odo.

[dkaz]

That is very impressive. How fast were you driving?

I'd never see those kind of numbers around here with the way I drive.

On two lane highways, the speed limit (90-100) or 5-10 above if there was a lineup behind me. On multilane highways, speed limit up to 105. I took advantage of downgrades to drift my speed up to as fast as I felt comfortable driving at to make up time.

Awesome.  Best I got with the 6 is +/- 930 km on a tank and putting in close to 55 liters for 5.88 L/100 km on my way down to Florida last fall with only 1000 km on the odo.

That's 40 (US) MPG! That's good for an engine that hasn't fully broken in yet and a bigger car with a bigger engine. My 3 just has the 155 HP 2.0.

[Minou]

That is very impressive. How fast were you driving?

I'd never see those kind of numbers around here with the way I drive.

On two lane highways, the speed limit (90-100) or 5-10 above if there was a lineup behind me. On multilane highways, speed limit up to 105. I took advantage of downgrades to drift my speed up to as fast as I felt comfortable driving at to make up time.

Awesome.  Best I got with the 6 is +/- 930 km on a tank and putting in close to 55 liters for 5.88 L/100 km on my way down to Florida last fall with only 1000 km on the odo.

That's 40 (US) MPG! That's good for an engine that hasn't fully broken in yet and a bigger car with a bigger engine. My 3 just has the 155 HP 2.0.

Yes and that 40 MPG exceeds the EPA value of 38 but my 5.88 is far, FAR from NRCAN's 5.1.  I actualy did 5.88 on 2 successive tanks on that trip so it's repeatable but only with close to perfect conditions, i.e little wind, city, traffic or AC use in mild temperatures.  And of course a good driver!  If they had kept the tank at 70 liters, 1000 km would be doable.

[Waterlooresident]

Quote:  "Compared to how brutal the old 2.3 was at the pump"

yes, that's true.  Just look at this info and you will see how the new car compares to the old car:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=24296&id=34287

old 2.3 L = 29 mph highway
new 2.5 L = 37 mph highway

I've been keeping track of my 2006 Corolla's fuel economy:  With my winter tires on i got an average of 34.2 mpg (U.S. mpg) over 7 fill-ups, and that's a combined city/hwy driving.  Now I've switched over to all-season tires and over 4 fill-ups I'm averaging 36.8 mpg (U.S. mpg), almost 37 mpg (U.S. mpg), and that's with the ancient 4-speed auto too.  Its been almost 10 years since 2006, you would have thought that cars would be getting around 50 mpg (U.S. mpg) highway by now, right?   
p.s. that's around 60 mpg using our slightly larger imperial gallons.)   1 imperial gallon = 1.2 U.S. gallons.

Quick and easy way to convert:  take that 5.88 L/100 km figure this way:   divide 235 by the L/100km value like this:
   235 / 5.88 =  40 U.S. mpg

[Solstice2006]

Very nice to drive but a smooth rider it was not. I didn't mind but the roads here are pretty smooth. I can also see why people would take the Cruze as it is a nice car at a low price, but that is not the Mazda's market.

This is why Mazda will go bankrupt. I'd guess about 1 percent of those buying thrifty commuter cars care if it's sporty. For the daily slog, most people want more comfort.

Mazda is playing with too small a demographic to last.

Well here are some facts that indicate that Mazda will not go bankrupt in the next couple of years.  You don't build a plant in Mexico, only to go bankrupt 1 year after..

The positive trend at Mazda Motor Corporation remained intact after the third quarter of the fiscal year ending on 31 March 2014, as the Japanese automaker chalked up year-on-year gains in all key categories over the first nine months. Mazda’s European arm made a solid contribution, too, closing 2013 with its best quarter of vehicle sales growth for the year.

At ¥125 billion (€947 million*), global operating profit rose sharply between April and December 2013, and net income was up by over 200 per cent to ¥77 billion (€583 million). Worldwide revenue, meanwhile, reached ¥1.94 trillion (€14.7 billion), an improvement of 26 per cent versus the same period in 2012.

Mazda sold 953,000 vehicles over the nine months, which was 7 per cent more than the year before. Europe** contributed 109,000, up 27 per cent, and 35,000 in the third quarter. The latter figure marked a 41 per cent year-on-year rise. Mazda thereby ended a banner 2013 calendar year on a high note in an overall European market that contracted for the sixth consecutive year.

http://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/mazda-hikes-global-sales-profits/

[mmret]

That is very impressive. How fast were you driving?

I'd never see those kind of numbers around here with the way I drive.

On two lane highways, the speed limit (90-100) or 5-10 above if there was a lineup behind me. On multilane highways, speed limit up to 105. I took advantage of downgrades to drift my speed up to as fast as I felt comfortable driving at to make up time.

Awesome.  Best I got with the 6 is +/- 930 km on a tank and putting in close to 55 liters for 5.88 L/100 km on my way down to Florida last fall with only 1000 km on the odo.

That's 40 (US) MPG! That's good for an engine that hasn't fully broken in yet and a bigger car with a bigger engine. My 3 just has the 155 HP 2.0.

Yes and that 40 MPG exceeds the EPA value of 38 but my 5.88 is far, FAR from NRCAN's 5.1.  I actualy did 5.88 on 2 successive tanks on that trip so it's repeatable but only with close to perfect conditions, i.e little wind, city, traffic or AC use in mild temperatures.  And of course a good driver!  If they had kept the tank at 70 liters, 1000 km would be doable.

NRCAN is insane though, probably only achievable with a 60km/h tailwind.

[PJ]

That is very impressive. How fast were you driving?

I'd never see those kind of numbers around here with the way I drive.

On two lane highways, the speed limit (90-100) or 5-10 above if there was a lineup behind me. On multilane highways, speed limit up to 105. I took advantage of downgrades to drift my speed up to as fast as I felt comfortable driving at to make up time.

Awesome.  Best I got with the 6 is +/- 930 km on a tank and putting in close to 55 liters for 5.88 L/100 km on my way down to Florida last fall with only 1000 km on the odo.

That's 40 (US) MPG! That's good for an engine that hasn't fully broken in yet and a bigger car with a bigger engine. My 3 just has the 155 HP 2.0.

Yes and that 40 MPG exceeds the EPA value of 38 but my 5.88 is far, FAR from NRCAN's 5.1.  I actualy did 5.88 on 2 successive tanks on that trip so it's repeatable but only with close to perfect conditions, i.e little wind, city, traffic or AC use in mild temperatures.  And of course a good driver!  If they had kept the tank at 70 liters, 1000 km would be doable.

NRCAN is insane though, probably only achievable with a 60km/h tailwind.

Not sure why people keep blaming NRCAN.  The standards have been the same for a long time and were reasonably accurate in the past.  All my cars from the 90's had no trouble meeting their rated city/ hwy numbers.  My 2003 Expedition numbers are very accurate. 

Has it not occurred to people that the companies numbers are not exactly honest?   

[Solstice2006]

If NRCAN is so good, why are they changing the standards to be more accurate? The EPA is much more accurate.  Not everyone sets the cruise control at 80km/h to obtain NRCAN numbers. 

[PJ]

If NRCAN is so good, why are they changing the standards to be more accurate? The EPA is much more accurate.  Not everyone sets the cruise control at 80km/h to obtain NRCAN numbers.

They are changing them because that's what people want.  On earlier cars you don't need to set the cruise at 80 to meet the numbers. 


Too bad people are so eager to blame the government and so quick to forget the past. 

[Solstice2006]

If NRCAN is so good, why are they changing the standards to be more accurate? The EPA is much more accurate.  Not everyone sets the cruise control at 80km/h to obtain NRCAN numbers.

They are changing them because that's what people want.  On earlier cars you don't need to set the cruise at 80 to meet the numbers. 


Too bad people are so eager to blame the government and so quick to forget the past.

Well I really can't say whether NRCAN numbers were more accurate then (90s) or now.  As I never really kept track back then, gas was more than 1/2 the price.  What did I care? If it got 8L/100km or 11L/100km, it never cost more than $40!

[mixmanmash]

If NRCAN is so good, why are they changing the standards to be more accurate? The EPA is much more accurate.  Not everyone sets the cruise control at 80km/h to obtain NRCAN numbers.

Because they too have figured out that auto manufacturers have programmed their ECUs to ace the test.  Throw more of a mix with different variables and it will be more difficult for then to achieve it.

[conwelpic]

regarding the new NRCan changes, this is what applies to this model:

2014 Mazda 2.5L
City:  7.2 (33 mpg US)
Highway:  8.4 (46 mpg US)

2015 Mazda 2.5L
City:  8.4 (28 mpg US)
Highway:  6.1 (39 mpg US)
(these figures are identical to the current US EPA figures for the 2014 model)

[dkaz]

If NRCAN is so good, why are they changing the standards to be more accurate? The EPA is much more accurate.  Not everyone sets the cruise control at 80km/h to obtain NRCAN numbers.

NRCAN numbers can be achieved at 100 without A/C, or 90-95 with A/C. 4 bangers being closer to 90 and 6 cylinders closer to 95.

[Black Hatch]

I agree. I test drove the base 6 with the auto and it had no punch at all. I wasn't expecting to be pinned to the seat, but compared to the Accord with the CVT it seemed slow. Even if I hadn't drove the Accord, the 6 seemed underpowered. It looks like it's set up to deliver maximum fuel economy. I like to save on fuel as much as the next guy, but not that much. Not all reviews have stated this lack or power, but some have. After the test drive I was happy to get back into my 2010 Mazda 3 with the 2.5. It seemed more responsive! Such a good looking car should have more power.

Is your 2010 Mazda3 an auto transmission?
Mazda was notorious for their automatics having very poor fuel economy (before skyactiv) because in order to get that "sporty" nature, the auto was tuned to shift gears very late. With skyactiv it is the complete opposite as you said to deliver maximum fuel economy.

Steve C - agree completely on the 6.  With a bit more oomph it would be my current hands-down segment fave. But with standard power so tepid and no uplevel engine option at all - probably not.  A beige V6 Camry would blast past a racing-red 6, blowing off its doors and sucking out its headliights in the passing vortex.  If only the 6 were remotely as fast as it looks.  (For those who are altogether too literal, I am not suggesting that drag racing prowess plays any part in midsize family sedan selection - but power is a plus in a great many circumstances beyond the drag strip).

But with a V6 you are also decreasing the fuel economy.
Also isn't there a HP limit for FWD; as in avoiding torque steer.
Mazda6 has more than adequate power for I4 when compared to its I4 mid-size competition.

Very nice car. How is it selling?
I'm beginning to think of Mazda as the best, worst selling car maker.
Did that make sense?

Yes, it does: the 3 is down by more than 30% in the US vs the previous smiling gen.
All the non-car people associate "Mazda" with "rust". If they improved the warranty and rust protection, they should advertise it now!!

I think the sales of the Mazda3 is down, but have you noticed that the sales of the CX-5 is up!!!  Wasn't this segment down for the year? I think US buyers are swayed into buying SUV especially AWD due to this winter vortex.

CX-5 US sales in March is up 347% (17,811 from 7,116 last year) and YTD it is almost selling double the amount from last year. http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/04/usa-march-2013-suv-sales-rankings-by-model.html

In regards to rust warranty, Mazda has 8 years for surface rust, Toyota and Honda has 5 years. 
I think the reason they dont want to advertise about previous "rust" problems is that would be "admitting" that they had problems with rust before and the results could be catastrophic economically if they would have to recall all those affected.  How would they even recall them, short of giving the people brand new vehicles. How did people in the 80s get compensated for rusty Hondas?
 

Very nice to drive but a smooth rider it was not. I didn't mind but the roads here are pretty smooth. I can also see why people would take the Cruze as it is a nice car at a low price, but that is not the Mazda's market.

This is why Mazda will go bankrupt. I'd guess about 1 percent of those buying thrifty commuter cars care if it's sporty. For the daily slog, most people want more comfort.
Mazda is playing with too small a demographic to last.

Then why has the Mazda3 been in the top 5 in car sales since it hit the market a decade ago?
More people like to drive then you think.

Being Top 5 in a market that isn't a Top 10 world market won't sustain Mazda as a company.  This has been discussed before.
Regular Joe car buyers outnumber "drivers" by a huge margin.

Because US buyers are different.
I don't know about world numbers but I think the Mazda3 is doing relatively well world-wide. Consider the Ford Focus, it is not doing that well sales-wise when compared to the Civic, Corolla and the Elantra in the US, but is it not considered at least top 3 sales-wise world-wide?
Solstice already mentioned that Mazda is at least making a small profit.

Being Top 5 in a market that isn't a Top 10 world market won't sustain Mazda as a company.  This has been discussed before.
Regular Joe car buyers outnumber "drivers" by a huge margin.

i've mentioned something similar in the car comparo threads before...i think reviewers often weight the driving dynamics portions too high...giving praise for value, ergonomics, cargo capacity and features, but then criticizing driving dynamics, which seems to drop some cars in the final results...the truth is (as i have said), the buying public doesn't care about carving apexes on highway on-ramps...they want a car with the features they want, that is nice to drive (which all new cars are) with a decent warranty and at a price they can afford (total or payment)...the sales numbers also prove this...Corollas and Civics aren't top picks for driving dynamics, but Toyota and Honda sell acres of them every month...and so they should, they are great cars.

Taking out driving dynamics, you are forgetting a few other things that the Mazda3 does well/better than the competition.

1. Safety - Mazda3 exceeds the Corolla and Civic in regards to safety.
Consumer Reports recently took the Camry out of being recommended and only re-recommended after it past the IIHS small overlap test.
The Mazda3, Mazda6 and CX-5 all passed the small overlap are top safety picks plus.
The Corolla only gets a marginal grade for the small overlap and neither the Civic or Corolla have the "options" for advanced safety features such as blind-spot monitoring, smart city braking, etc.  Rightly or wrongly Mazda has more safety features than the Corolla, Civic or its competition.

2. Technology - Yes all cars should have bluetooth capability but do they all have the ability for text to speech or a controller for Navigation? At least on-par or leading for this segment.

3. Mazda has increase fuel efficiency where it is no longer a crutch which hinder previous generations now has been the most fuel efficieny manufacturer in the USA (and without using  CVT).
I know it is with the caveat that Mazda doesn't have trucks but neither do they have the advantage of having hybrids.
Rightly or wrongly.

4. Style and looks - looks play at least some factor when choosing a vehicle. Arguably the Mazda3 looks better inside and out than the competition.

5. Space, with the demise of the Toyota Matrix, the Mazda3 hatch and Golf are now the go to vehicles for people who want an affordable compact hatch.

Yes the Mazda3 may not be better at cargo capacity than others, but it does other things better than other compacts without including driving dynamics. Driving dynamics is just the icing on the cake. I think the reviewers weigh those as well.
Damn I sound like a salesman.

In regards to Toyota and Honda selling so many vehicles it is mostly because those are the two that most non-car people know about it.  That doesn't mean they are better.
Again Mazda advertising is horrific.

[Jaeger]

But with a V6 you are also decreasing the fuel economy.
Also isn't there a HP limit for FWD; as in avoiding torque steer.
Mazda6 has more than adequate power for I4 when compared to its I4 mid-size competition.

Mazda isn't just competing against I4 competition.  They are competing against the bigger players in the midsize segment - which in Mazda's case means just about everybody.  And it definitely means Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai.  And all of those offer optional uplevel power.  Mazda doesn't.  It's a choice that may pay off - given that the bulk of sales across the board in the segment are for the base powertrain.  Or not.  But pretending that it's all even-Steven as between Mazda and the competition when it comes to available power is just that - pretending. 

I haven't found torque steer to be a big issue in the V6 offerings from the likes of Honda, Nissan and Toyota for at least a full generation, and it's barely noticeably in my Sonata (which makes more toque and down lower than any of the V6s).

Yes, more power = more fuel consumption.  But that is a tradeoff that buyers seeking more power in the midsize class are willing to make.  Choice is good.  Mazda denies me that choice. And everyone else.

Have you driven the 6?  I found the power barely adequate - and that was with just me and the salesman and no luggage and about 5 bucks worth of gas in the tank.  Make it three golf buddies and 4 sets of clubs in the trunk and I'm willing to be that the power will seem a good deal less than adequate.  Add even modest hills to the equation and I'm quite certain that adequate is off the table.

4-pot only is fine for the 3.  But when I think about what the 6 would be like with a silky-smooth and powerful Toyota V6 under the hood... well, let's just say it puts a smile on my face.

[Seafoam]

If NRCAN is so good, why are they changing the standards to be more accurate? The EPA is much more accurate.  Not everyone sets the cruise control at 80km/h to obtain NRCAN numbers.

NRCAN numbers can be achieved at 100 without A/C, or 90-95 with A/C. 4 bangers being closer to 90 and 6 cylinders closer to 95.

I agree ,I have no trouble getting low 5's in my civic.

[dirtyjeffer]

I agree ,I have no trouble getting low 5's in my civic.

on level ground, in the warm summer months, at 80 km/hr with the cruise control on in my Rio5, i've hit 4.5...even with a bit of "hills", 4.8 is still doable.

[WRX_Pilot]

Agree, too bad about the front plate, they should have moved the mount down a bit so it's not smack dab in the middle of the grille.

And doesn't the frustrating screen lock out bug anyone else?  When I test drove, that was a deal breaker to me.  Something that would bug me daily...  I wonder if someone will be able to make a work around.

[SKYMTL]

I'm hoping they release aftermarket trim kits to replace the ugly chrome details around the windows and on the front grille.  IMO, the car would look so much better without those.