All-New 2019 Mazda3 Looks Sleek Inside And Out In Best Photos Yet

[93JC]

Ah, my bad. Thanks.

No worries, I'm just glad that now you know I wasn't pulling number out of my ass.

My 2010 Sport GS w/ automatic MSRPed for about $22,500-$22,800 (I can't remember exactly anymore), so the new one is about $2,500-$3,000 more. However, it's also far better equipped with infotainment and safety doodads, and $22,500 in 2009 dollars is >$26,000 in 2018 dollars.

[BimmerM3]

No worries, I'm just glad that now you know I wasn't pulling number out of my ass.

My 2010 Sport GS w/ automatic MSRPed for about $22,500-$22,800 (I can't remember exactly anymore), so the new one is about $2,500-$3,000 more. However, it's also far better equipped with infotainment and safety doodads, and $22,500 in 2009 dollars is >$26,000 in 2018 dollars.

Well, the US site doesn't have 2019 info up yet, so from my perspective, it'd be an easy mistake to accidentally grab 2018 prices if you were moving quickly and didn't notice the year.

I don't think it's that outrageously priced, TBH. It's hard to compare the 3 to the Golf directly because they're equipped a bit differently (mostly that the 3 has more driving tech - radar cruise control and whatnot, and only the sedan is available in the cheapest trim), but it's roughly the same price here too for similar performance specs.

The GTI comparison that these guys are making is a bit of a stretch because they're comparing a loaded Mazda 3 to a "base" GTI (quotes because Golf is really the base model), though I admittedly don't know exactly how comparably equipped they they are at those levels. Though I did notice that radar cruise control isn't available in the GTI until the highest trim at $35k, so that's one thing the Mazda has in its favor.

[2o6]

I think it's odd that the US is 2.5L only.


How many 2.5L's did they really move last gen? Most of the listings I've seen are for the 2.0L.

[93JC]

I'd wager it was about half-and-half in Canada.

[2o6]

I'd wager it was about half-and-half in Canada.

The current shape, I meant.


The old one was definitely half 2.0, and half 2.5 - you couldn't get a 2.0L hatchback (Until the Skyactiv)


The 2.5L though? Maybe 25%? I feel like that's generous. You had to opt for an "s" touring or grand touring.

[93JC]

I don't think it's that outrageously priced, TBH. It's hard to compare the 3 to the Golf directly because they're equipped a bit differently (mostly that the 3 has more driving tech - radar cruise control and whatnot, and only the sedan is available in the cheapest trim), but it's roughly the same price here too for similar performance specs.

The GTI comparison that these guys are making is a bit of a stretch because they're comparing a loaded Mazda 3 to a "base" GTI (quotes because Golf is really the base model), though I admittedly don't know exactly how comparably equipped they they are at those levels. Though I did notice that radar cruise control isn't available in the GTI until the highest trim at $35k, so that's one thing the Mazda has in its favor.

Yeah, I don't get the GTI comparison as the GTI is still quite a bit more money (in Canada, at least), and the comparison to a Civic Si or a Veloster N is kind of a non sequitur to me. I mean, sure: you can get a Civic Si (in Canada) for $28,990, and arguably that's a better "deal" as an "enthusiast" because it's 205 hp vs. 187 and the Honda has a manual whereas the Mazda doesn't. But the Mazda is better equipped and arguably has a nicer interior. The Veloster is an entirely different kind of car that—if I'm shopping for something like a Mazda 3, VW Golf or Honda Civic—doesn't even enter into the equation. It makes as much sense to me as asking "Why would I buy a Honda Civic Si when I could buy a Ford F-150 for $30,000?" (For that matter, why buy a Veloster N when I could buy a Mustang?)

[93JC]

The current shape, I meant.


The old one was definitely half 2.0, and half 2.5 - you couldn't get a 2.0L hatchback (Until the Skyactiv)

I also meant "the current shape", the third-gen that's ending production.

The 2.5L though? Maybe 25%? I feel like that's generous. You had to opt for an "s" touring or grand touring.

Your American trim names mean nothing to me. As I said w.r.t. Canada the availability of engines in the new generation will be the same as it was before: base-models and mid-level sedans get the 2.0, mid-level hatches and top-of-the-line trims get the 2.5. In fact you couldn't get the 2.5 in the mid-level (GS) sedan in the last generation, and the one before that, but the new generation will have it available as an option. I'd wager the last two generations of Mazda 3s have had a pretty even split between 2.0s and 2.5s in Canada, and the new one won't be any different.

[Xer0]

The Veloster and GTI were brought up because the only way to get a manual 3 is in a fully loaded hatch which is almost 29K.  At that point, the question becomes why over a GTI.  It was more a meta point that Mazda doesn't care about enthusiasts anymore.

[93JC]

This is the most surprising thing to me in this entire thread:

This starts at $22K with the 2.5. You know what else starts at 22K with the 2.5? The 6 What would you choose for the same money?

I had to look this up just to believe it. Wow, you can get a Mazda 6 for $21,950 in the States. Golly. In Canada the 6 starts at $27,250. (For reference a Camry starts at $27,950, and an Accord starts at $28,090.) However, the US-market 6 Sport is missing several features that the Canadian-market 6 GS has a standard equipment: automatic transmission (can't get a manual 6 in Canada anymore), power driver's seat, heated seats front and rear, and rain-sensing wipers at the very least. Looks like you have to jump up to the Touring trim to get that, which is $25,700.

That said $21,950 USD is $29,300 CAD, so... I guess we get the better deal after all.

[BimmerM3]

The Veloster and GTI were brought up because the only way to get a manual 3 is in a fully loaded hatch which is almost 29K.  At that point, the question becomes why over a GTI.  It was more a meta point that Mazda doesn't care about enthusiasts anymore.

Because a loaded 3 is better equipped than a base GTI. If you want performance over features, get the GTI. If you want features over performance, get a 3.

[93JC]

The Veloster and GTI were brought up because the only way to get a manual 3 is in a fully loaded hatch which is almost 29K.  At that point, the question becomes why over a GTI.  It was more a meta point that Mazda doesn't care about enthusiasts anymore.

I mean, I guess... but if you're an enthusiast why settle for a GTI or a Veloster when you can get a Mustang for $26,395?

[BimmerM3]

This is the most surprising thing to me in this entire thread:

I had to look this up just to believe it. Wow, you can get a Mazda 6 for $21,950 in the States. Golly. In Canada the 6 starts at $27,250. (For reference a Camry starts at $27,950, and an Accord starts at $28,090.) However, the US-market 6 Sport is missing several features that the Canadian-market 6 GS has a standard equipment: automatic transmission (can't get a manual 6 in Canada anymore), power driver's seat, heated seats front and rear, and rain-sensing wipers at the very least. Looks like you have to jump up to the Touring trim to get that, which is $25,700.

That said $21,950 USD is $29,300 CAD, so... I guess we get the better deal after all.

Yeah that surprised me as well, and I didn't know you could get a 6 with a manual at all until you mentioned it.

I had a Touring trim 6 as a rental last summer. I was really impressed, and the stop-and-go radar cruise control was a godsend getting through Atlanta during rush hour.

[Raza]

I can't believe there's a new Mazda3 coming out already.  Seems like the current one was just released yesterday.

[12,000 RPM]

I think it's odd that the US is 2.5L only.


How many 2.5L's did they really move last gen? Most of the listings I've seen are for the 2.0L.

For data like this I like to look at classifieds... mental HDD is still booting up

It's clear what Mazda is trying to do though and I don't know that it's gonna work.

[Xer0]

I mean, I guess... but if you're an enthusiast why settle for a GTI or a Veloster when you can get a Mustang for $26,395?

The point isn't to compare the Mazda3 with every single enthusiast option at its price range because then you start cross shopping ridiculous things like the Mustang, a BRZ, a 2.0 Camaro 1LE, used Miatas, etc.  The point is to compare it to its natural competition as a FWD hatchback with sporting pretensions which lands it squarely, and unfavorably imo, against the GTI.

[2o6]

For data like this I like to look at classifieds... mental HDD is still booting up

It's clear what Mazda is trying to do though and I don't know that it's gonna work.

Like most compact cars, many of them I see are not stripper base (although base Mazda 3's are well equipped) but I don't see that many loaded out ones. So, the vast majority are 2.0L

[93JC]

The point isn't to compare the Mazda3 with every single enthusiast option at its price range because then you start cross shopping ridiculous things like the Mustang, a BRZ, a 2.0 Camaro 1LE, used Miatas, etc.  The point is to compare it to its natural competition as a FWD hatchback with sporting pretensions which lands it squarely, and unfavorably imo, against the GTI.

Eh... Again, I get the point you're trying to make, but as I said in my opinion it's a stretch because they really only overlap at the very, very high end of the Mazda 3's pricing scale and the very, very bottom of the GTI's. You could make the argument that the GTI is the more compelling buy because it has 40 hp more, but like I said this ignores that at that price the Mazda is far better equipped than a base GTI, and to get a GTI with the bells and whistles will be 15-20% more money. By the very same point of comparison it's like saying no one should ever buy a fully-loaded Golf 1.4T, because at that point they should just buy a Golf GTI.

The Veloster N comparison is not even a 'stretch'; again, they might both be front-drive hatchbacks but to me they're not even the same kind of car.

[BimmerM3]

Yeah it seems like people are overstating the "sporting intentions" of the 3. It's not a Mazdaspeed.

[Xer0]

Eh... Again, I get the point you're trying to make, but as I said in my opinion it's a stretch because they really only overlap at the very, very high end of the Mazda 3's pricing scale and the very, very bottom of the GTI's. You could make the argument that the GTI is the more compelling buy because it has 40 hp more, but like I said this ignores that at that price the Mazda is far better equipped than a base GTI, and to get a GTI with the bells and whistles will be 15-20% more money. By the very same point of comparison it's like saying no one should ever buy a fully-loaded Golf 1.4T, because at that point they should just buy a Golf GTI.

The Veloster N comparison is not even a 'stretch'; again, they might both be front-drive hatchbacks but to me they're not even the same kind of car.

You're getting too hung up on this.  The only way to get a manual in your 3 is in a 29K hatchback which places it right in line with the GTI.  As a car with sporting pretensions, and the model appealing to enthusiasts, it looks like this Mazda3 is not up to snuff as it is outclassed by everything in its competitive set while not being competitively priced. 

Even ignoring the manual which was always a side note anyway, this car is too expensive, imo.  The manual pricing and trim just highlights it better than anything else.

[93JC]

Well I think you're getting too hung up on this.


Again, you're ignoring that a $29,000 Mazda 3 is far better equipped than a $29,000 GTI. The GTI is bare-bones and doesn't come with all sorts of stuff the comparably priced Mazda would. The 3's competition is the regular Golf, not the GTI. A well-equipped Golf 1.4T is going to cost about as much as a bare-bones GTI, so, again, you're making the argument that a well-equipped Golf isn't worth buying either because it's "overpriced".

And, again, if you're really going to go down the road of arguing the GTI is a better buy because of performance/$, then the Mustang trumps all and there's no reason for anyone to get anything else.

(As described in previous pages, I can get a manual in any trim with either the 2.0 or 2.5. )

[Xer0]

Well I think you're getting too hung up on this.


Again, you're ignoring that a $29,000 Mazda 3 is far better equipped than a $29,000 GTI. The GTI is bare-bones and doesn't come with all sorts of stuff the comparably priced Mazda would. The 3's competition is the regular Golf, not the GTI. A well-equipped Golf 1.4T is going to cost about as much as a bare-bones GTI, so, again, you're making the argument that a well-equipped Golf isn't worth buying either because it's "overpriced".

And, again, if you're really going to go down the road of arguing the GTI is a better buy because of performance/$, then the Mustang trumps all and there's no reason for anyone to get anything else.

(As described in previous pages, I can get a manual in any trim with either the 2.0 or 2.5. )

Dude, the only person making the argument that a well-equipped Golf is "overpriced" is the imaginary version of me that you're arguing with.  Also, the GTI is actually on par to a better performer than the Mustang per the last Lightning lap they were both on in 2015-Mustang ran it at 3:15.6 vs GTI's 3:14.6.  So that comparison is not only purposely obtuse to make a counterpoint that no one is arguing about, but also more or less wrong.  That Mustang was also something like 10K more expensive and needs all the performance options to even stand a chance.  Anway, here is my point, once again:

As a car with sporting pretensions, and the model appealing to enthusiasts (the 29K manual hatch), it looks like this Mazda3 is not up to snuff as it is outclassed by everything in its competitive set while not being competitively priced. 

Even ignoring the manual which was always a side note anyway, this car is too expensive, imo.  The manual pricing and trim just highlights it better than anything else.

Feel free to ignore the GTI comparison, this car is more expensive at almost every level then its competitors.  That interior better be damn good to justify it because the suspension probably took a step back.

[2o6]

Currently, I can spend like 20k even and get a decent manual 3 hatchback.


Next year's car is $8000 more to do that. I can spend that same cash, and get a GTI which has most of the options I care about and is a stronger performer.

[2o6]

Or I can spend less, and get a Civic Turbo, or the shockingly good Corolla hatchback. Or, if I really feel like driving a fast car, a base Cooper S.

[12,000 RPM]

Or I can spend less, and get a Civic Turbo, or the shockingly good Corolla hatchback. Or, if I really feel like driving a fast car, a base Cooper S.

Yea the Civic Touring/Si are the 3's biggest problems

Well and the 6 too

[BimmerM3]

I'm with 93JC for the most part.

Yes, many enthusiasts would chose a base GTI over a loaded Mazda 3. But that doesn't mean that there aren't reasons to choose the 3 over the GTI, and enthusiasts are a decreasing population.

Y'all are overstating the "sporting pretentions" of the Mazda3. That comparison would make more sense if they offered a Mazdaspeed version.

The best direct competitor for the 3 is the Golf. The Civic Si will be less practical than a 3 and has a (subjectively) worse interior. Again, not disagreeing that many people will choose a Civic, just pointing out that there are also valid reasons to get a 3 instead. I don't know much about the Corolla so maybe you have a point there.

I do agree that getting rid of the smaller engine is kinda risky, and that many people will go for a 6 instead, at least until the next generation that inevitably ups the price. Which are points that 93JC isn't even arguing against since they still get the 2.0 and their 6 is priced relatively higher.

[2o6]

But that was moving the goalposts; no one was ever really talking about the Canadian 2.0L. We were strictly talking that getting a manual trans Mazda 3 has a high cost of entry. The cost of entry for a manual 3 is roughly the same price as a GTI. A base Golf has nothing to do with this, although the cost of entry for that is 22K.


I don't care about the automatic cars, or the Canadian model.

[93JC]

*sigh* The issue I've had with you guys all along is your goalposts that you've set at "(very well-equipped) Mazda 3 hatchback w/ manual ("the model appealing to enthusiasts") = $29,000 (which is bunk anyway, it's $27,500) ∴ all Mazda 3s are overpriced".

98% of new cars sold in the United States of America come with automatics, so who fucking cares about the manual? You guys are pretending as though the only Mazda 3 that will be sold, or the only worth buying, must have a manual gearbox. As soon as this pretence is dropped your complaints go away. 98% of Americans see an automatic as a DESIRABLE FEATURE, not some sort of toxic detriment like you guys are treating it. You complain that the Mazda 3 is too much fucking money, but forget that most of its competitors make you pay EXTRA for one of the key features that 98% of American carbuyers WANT!

So I agree wholeheartedly with sportyaccordy's statement that "Civic Touring/Si are the 3's biggest problems". This GTI comparison is a BS non sequitur: the 3 is a Civic/Corolla(/Golf/Jetta/etc) competitor, not GTIs and Hyundai Velosters. Lets take that Civic Touring sedan as an example:

174 hp, CVT, Bluetooth, CarPlay/Android Auto, all the Honda lane-keeping/blindspot monitoring safety stuff, 10-speaker stereo w/ SiriusXM, 7" touchcreen, satnav, LED automatic headlights, moonroof, remote start, heated mirrors, heated leather seats, power front seats (8-way driver's, 4-way passenger's), rain-sensing wipers, for $27,300.

A "Premium" package 3 sedan, by comparison: 186 hp, 6-speed automatic, Bluetooth, CarPlay/Android Auto, all the Mazda lane-keeping/blindspot monitoring safety stuff, 12-speaker stereo w/ SiriusXM, 8.8" touchscreen, satnav, LED auto headlights (and LED taillights), sunroof, heated mirrors, heated leather seats, 10-way power driver's seat, rain-sensing wipers, heads-up display, blah blah blah, for $26,500.

If you acknowledge the existence of the automatic, and deign yourself to consider one, it turns out the 3 is actually competitively priced!

[Eye of the Tiger]

Or you can Forte 5 SX 1.6 turbo with 7-speed DCT for $23900, emmanuel is $2200 option, kek.

[BimmerM3]

But that was moving the goalposts; no one was ever really talking about the Canadian 2.0L. We were strictly talking that getting a manual trans Mazda 3 has a high cost of entry. The cost of entry for a manual 3 is roughly the same price as a GTI. A base Golf has nothing to do with this, although the cost of entry for that is 22K.


I don't care about the automatic cars, or the Canadian model.

Oh, I was talking about whether or not it'll flop.

I'm not gonna sit here and argue that your preferences are wrong. It is a bummer for people who were in the market for a base manual, but unfortunately it's just not a significant portion of the market anymore. I guess I've just already come to peace with that fact.

[12,000 RPM]

If nobody cared about the manual Mazda wouldn't be offering it 93JC

Plus I would say a higher percentage of people buying 3s care about shit like dynamics and pedal count than people buying Civics. Mazda themselves go out of their way to wax poetic about jinbai ittai and all that shit, so they are the one prompting the comparison to the drivers' cars in the segment.

But the specs and choices put them at a further disadvantage this go round.