Topic: Test Drive: 2016 Mazda3 Sport GS

[Ron]

In my personal classification Mazda is Tier 2 Japanese car (Tier 1 is Honda/Toyota/Subaru and Tier 3 are Mazda/Mitsubishi/Suzuki). Like previous gen Mazda3, this one is again a good looking car and with expected no rust prone plus fun to drive it has just one main problem - long term reliability and from here the residual value...

I call bs on the unreliable statement. Too many examples, my own and others, say otherwise; these are solid reliable vehicles. Sites like TrueDelta say the same. I had about 150k on a 02 Protégé, no repairs, heck still on original brakes. I have 100k on the 3, no issues/repairs and still 6-7mm on the brakes! My wife's Mazda 5 has about 65k and no issues/repairs etc. Another recent telling example after taking our neighbors to the ferry for vacation - they had bought an 11 Elantra about the same time as my 3, but had fewer kms and they were amazed at how tight and like new the 3 still was with no problems, unlike their experience with the Elantra. A few weeks later there is a new Mazda 3 sitting in their driveway, bye bye Elantra.

Whether Mazda has overcome the previous rust issues really remains to be seen - there is none on my cars and I have yet to see any on the 2nd generation 3s, but I have seen it on 09s. I don't hesitate to recommend these cars, only with the rust caveat.

[JRM]

The Golf is my pick of the hatch backs.  The base Trendline is well equipped, has a luxurious looking and feeling interior, roomy cargo bay and it has the fab 1.8 l TSI engine.  Decent ride and handling too.  No contest!!

[conwelpic]

The Golf is my pick of the hatch backs.  The base Trendline is well equipped, has a luxurious looking and feeling interior, roomy cargo bay and it has the fab 1.8 l TSI engine.  Decent ride and handling too.  No contest!!

and my take 
The Soul is my pick of the hatch backs.  The SX is well equipped, has a luxurious looking and feeling interior, roomy cargo bay and it has the fab 2.0L engine.  Decent ride and handling too.  No contest!!

(also its only $600 more than the Trendline but a bunch more features (leather seats, heated steering wheel for example) and longer warranty with overall better reliability (according to product surveys) - but to each his own 
A couple of years ago I rented a VW Golf in Ireland for three weeks, I liked it and thought it was very good (1.2L gas engine) but not enough that I would actually purchase one over my Soul.)

[Fobroader]

The 200hp Forte 5 to me would be the pick of the litter....I just like the looks better.

I believe that doesn't have a independent rear suspension.

Meh, its a FWD car....if I wanted sporting, I wouldn't be buying a FWD hatch.

[Nuttygent]

  Just an observation...there has been a minimum of 9 test/first drives of this latest Mazda 3. Yes it is a good car in many respects, but many other cars get 1 or 2 at best. I think we get it, it's a fine vehicle.

[OliverD]

The Golf is my pick of the hatch backs.  The base Trendline is well equipped, has a luxurious looking and feeling interior, roomy cargo bay and it has the fab 1.8 l TSI engine.  Decent ride and handling too.  No contest!!

The base Golf is certainly very nice but it's boring to drive in comparison to a 3.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The Golf is my pick of the hatch backs.  The base Trendline is well equipped, has a luxurious looking and feeling interior, roomy cargo bay and it has the fab 1.8 l TSI engine.  Decent ride and handling too.  No contest!!

The base Golf is certainly very nice but it's boring to drive in comparison to a 3.

That was not my experience at all. The engine differences alone make the VW more entertaining.

[OliverD]

Personally I'll take tighter handling over the motor.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Personally I'll take tighter handling over the motor.

Not nearly enough difference in handling to make up for the engine for me. The 1.8 is all grunt all the time. It's addictive.

To get something similar performance-wise in the 3, a person would have to get the GT, which at $28k is the same as the entry GTI, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[SaskSpecV]

To get something similar performance-wise in the 3, a person would have to get the GT, which at $28k is the same as the entry GTI, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Not quite -  3 Sport GT starts at 26.3K (which I'll admit is 28K when freight/fees are added).  So substantially more than a base Golf, but roughly equivalent to the comfortline with convenience package (and substantially less the highline Golf, which is 29.5K + freight).  It is too bad that Mazda doesn't offer the 2.5L in the GS trim - that would be a true competitor for the trendline Golf.

But the GTI starts at 28.6K (so over 30K with freight) - and that's for the base model, 2-door variety.  If you want a comparably equipped GTI to a 3 Sport GT (or if you want a 5-door GTI), you have to start at Autobahn package - 34K + fees.  It is indeed a different kettle of fish - both performance and price-wise from the 3 GT.

The latest C&D did a comparison of the Golf and Mazda 3 sport, specifically focusing on the difference in turbo (1.8T) vs N/A (2.5L) engines.  They picked the Mazda3 primarily due to driver involvement (and it was quicker), but admitted that the turbo Golf might be more appropriate for many drivers.  Not online yet, but probably soon.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

To get something similar performance-wise in the 3, a person would have to get the GT, which at $28k is the same as the entry GTI, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Not quite -  3 Sport GT starts at 26.3K (which I'll admit is 28K when freight/fees are added).  So substantially more than a base Golf, but roughly equivalent to the comfortline with convenience package (and substantially less the highline Golf, which is 29.5K + freight).  It is too bad that Mazda doesn't offer the 2.5L in the GS trim - that would be a true competitor for the trendline Golf.

But the GTI starts at 28.6K (so over 30K with freight) - and that's for the base model, 2-door variety.  If you want a comparably equipped GTI to a 3 Sport GT (or if you want a 5-door GTI), you have to start at Autobahn package - 34K + fees.  It is indeed a different kettle of fish - both performance and price-wise from the 3 GT.

The latest C&D did a comparison of the Golf and Mazda 3 sport, specifically focusing on the difference in turbo (1.8T) vs N/A (2.5L) engines.  They picked the Mazda3 primarily due to driver involvement (and it was quicker), but admitted that the turbo Golf might be more appropriate for many drivers.  Not online yet, but probably soon.

I'm speaking just from a performance perspective, everyone has their preferences as far as interior equipment. For me, I hate leather seats and can't stand Mazda's infotainment system, so the 3 GT is out before it even starts.

With the 1.8TSI being available for ~$20k, while similar performance runs closer to $27k in the Mazda 3 is kind of a big gap.

Which transmission did C&D use for the test? The VW autobox is in the high 7s to 60, while the manual is about a second quicker at roughly 6.7seconds. They had a 2015 manual Mazda 3 2.5L running 0-60 at 7.3 seconds previously.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-mazda-3-25l-manual-hatch-tested-review

[SaskSpecV]

With the 1.8TSI being available for ~$20k, while similar performance runs closer to $27k in the Mazda 3 is kind of a big gap.

Which transmission did C&D use for the test? The autobox is in the high 7s to 60, while the manual is about a second quicker at roughly 6.7seconds. They had a 2015 manual Mazda 3 2.5L running 0-60 at 7.3 seconds previously.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-mazda-3-25l-manual-hatch-tested-review

Agreed, if you want the most performance at the lowest price, the 1.8T in the Trendline is really tough to beat.  But at the same price, the 3 will give up performance (2.0L) but get you more features (and mileage, and driver involvement).  Neither choice is bad.  If Mazda would put the 2.5L into more than the loaded trim, there'd be more parity across the board in terms of performance.

The C&D test used the auto versions of both cars - it had some disparaging comments about the 5MT in the Golf (say it ain't so!), and wanted the most equal configuration available (6 speed auto for both vehicles) to really isolate the differences in engine character.  The 3 Sport cracked 7 seconds to 60 mph, and the Golf was a little over 7 seconds (approximately 6.7 and 7.3, IIRC).

[Sir Osis of Liver]

With the 1.8TSI being available for ~$20k, while similar performance runs closer to $27k in the Mazda 3 is kind of a big gap.

Which transmission did C&D use for the test? The autobox is in the high 7s to 60, while the manual is about a second quicker at roughly 6.7seconds. They had a 2015 manual Mazda 3 2.5L running 0-60 at 7.3 seconds previously.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-mazda-3-25l-manual-hatch-tested-review

Agreed, if you want the most performance at the lowest price, the 1.8T in the Trendline is really tough to beat.  But at the same price, the 3 will give up performance (2.0L) but get you more features (and mileage, and driver involvement).  Neither choice is bad.  If Mazda would put the 2.5L into more than the loaded trim, there'd be more parity across the board in terms of performance.

The C&D test used the auto versions of both cars - it had some disparaging comments about the 5MT in the Golf (say it ain't so!), and wanted the most equal configuration available (6 speed auto for both vehicles) to really isolate the differences in engine character.  The 3 Sport cracked 7 seconds to 60 mph, and the Golf was a little over 7 seconds (approximately 6.7 and 7.3, IIRC).

APR did some testing and found that running 93 octane in a completely stock 1.8TSI Passat had it running 191hp/203ft-lbs on the dyno, up from 170/191 on 87 octane, which would drop the accelerations times by a few tenths or so.

http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_18tsi_gen3_trans.html

The 5 speed in the VW is the equal to the 6 speed in the Mazda from my experience. It was too easy to miss a shift with the narrow gates Mazda uses. Though a person would get used to it eventually.

There is such a narrow gap in "driver involvement" as to be lost on most drivers. What most drivers will notice is the additional wind and road noise, which I found aggravating. Even older cars like the Focus and Cruz were much quieter.

[mlin32]

I think the Mazda3 against Golf argument will, like many automotive comparisons, boil down to priorites and preferences.

I couldn't get over the road and wind noise of the Mazda3, because I do so much rural/autobahn driving. So darn loud, all the time, despite different tires. Lack of interior storage (no place to store CDs or warning vest), missing some detail features, cheap paint and glass quality, that irritating sloped hatch.....it added up. But if used as solely a suburban runabout, perhaps these flaws wouldn't be so pronounced.

Feel the Golf as a complete package is better polished.

[Ron]

There is such a narrow gap in "driver involvement" as to be lost on most drivers. What most drivers will notice is the additional wind and road noise, which I found aggravating. Even older cars like the Focus and Cruz were much quieter.

Perhaps, but having driven the new Mazda 3 back to back with the Civic and Corolla (think there was a Golf there also but never drove it) I think it is pretty evident which one is the 'driver's car'. The wind noise comment is unusual also in my experience, ie it is almost non-existent, but a definite yes to the road noise. Once I went with a normal touring tire that changed drastically; it is still there but not obtrusive.

My brother in law owned an 09 GTI for awhile and I agree, a very, very nice driving machine. If I could afford the eventual nickel and dimeing maintenance, or outright hemorrhaging, I would buy one without question.

[Jaeger]

Personally I'll take tighter handling over the motor.

Not nearly enough difference in handling to make up for the engine for me. The 1.8 is all grunt all the time. It's addictive.

To get something similar performance-wise in the 3, a person would have to get the GT, which at $28k is the same as the entry GTI, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Agreed with all of that.  That underwhelming feeling when you step on the throttle of most Mazda's would take the bloom off the rose real quick for me.  I don't always have winding country roads open before me.  But I accelerate allatime.

[mlin32]

To top things off, even the 2,5 litre was underwhelming. Nothing really happenened below 2750 u/min, and revving above 5500 u/min was mostly noise and vibration as well. Perhaps the 2 litre is a bit more rev-friendly up top. But given this type of vehicle (daily driver/family car), I'd rather have the flat wide torque curve. Or a diesel.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Personally I'll take tighter handling over the motor.

Not nearly enough difference in handling to make up for the engine for me. The 1.8 is all grunt all the time. It's addictive.

To get something similar performance-wise in the 3, a person would have to get the GT, which at $28k is the same as the entry GTI, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Agreed with all of that.  That underwhelming feeling when you step on the throttle of most Mazda's would take the bloom off the rose real quick for me.  I don't always have winding country roads open before me.  But I accelerate allatime.

That's a good point. The roads around here are roughly this winding:



which affects where I put priorities as far as handing and power.

[hemusbull]

In my personal classification Mazda is Tier 2 Japanese car (Tier 1 is Honda/Toyota/Subaru and Tier 3 are Mazda/Mitsubishi/Suzuki). Like previous gen Mazda3, this one is again a good looking car and with expected no rust prone plus fun to drive it has just one main problem - long term reliability and from here the residual value...

I have to argue that as I have been driving one  for 4 years and the only think I had to do is regular oil changes and tire rotations. Also you call it Tier 2 then you call it tier 3. I am curios what is the criteria in your mind to call Mazda a tier 2 or 3?
My wife has a 2010 5 and that car has been bullet proof too.
I had an accident so I was given a 2015 Civic with 10000 km and that car felt so cheap. Closing the doors sounded like metal, rolling up and down the front windows would make the door flex (whats up with that Civic) and a huge tach on the dash for a fringing CVT transmission (Stupid). The trunk wasn't even insulated and the dash looked like was not put together right. Also with the CVT transmission the fuel economy was on par with my ZoomZoom. Driving that honda felt like driving an appliance and made me think what is all the hype with Civic. I also had a Corolla back in 2007 and I hated everything about that car. I do not deny Toyota reliability but I wont buy based on that. I commute for 100 km round trip on windy roads and cannot just drive an appliance.

I apologize I put Mazda3 in Tier 3 after I designated it as the Tier 2 car, where I do believe is its place.
Unfortunately the reliability is a statistics matter and there always will be happy owners, doesn't matter what car. The percentage of dissatisfied owners of Mazda3 although is quite higher than the ones with Civic and all this is well documented. Sources like Consumer Reports and  Kelley blue book are just few of them. But may be the best readings for the topic are various owners' forums online.

[mazdaman007]

I apologize I put Mazda3 in Tier 3 after I designated it as the Tier 2 car, where I do believe is its place.
Unfortunately the reliability is a statistics matter and there always will be happy owners, doesn't matter what car. The percentage of dissatisfied owners of Mazda3 although is quite higher than the ones with Civic and all this is well documented. Sources like Consumer Reports and  Kelley blue book are just few of them. But may be the best readings for the topic are various owners' forums online.

Really ? Consumers Reports and their reliability and satisfaction statistics don't seem to agree with your opinion. And we all know how well online forums represent the true picture of any car maker's reliability